Talk:Spam blacklist
- Proposed additions
- Please provide evidence of spamming on several wikis. Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist. Exceptions include malicious domains and URL redirector/shortener services. Please follow this format. Please check back after submitting your report, there could be questions regarding your request.
- Proposed removals
- Please check our list of requests which repeatedly get declined. Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. Please consider whether requesting whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use is more appropriate - that is very often the case.
- Other discussion
- Troubleshooting and problems - If there is an error in the blacklist (i.e. a regex error) which is causing problems, please raise the issue here.
- Discussion - Meta-discussion concerning the operation of the blacklist and related pages, and communication among the spam blacklist team.
- #wikimedia-external-linksconnect - Real-time IRC chat for co-ordination of activities related to maintenance of the blacklist.
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. This leaves a signature and timestamp so conversations are easier to follow.
Completed requests are marked as {{added}}/{{removed}} or {{declined}}, and are generally archived (search) quickly. Additions and removals are logged.
- Information
- List of all projects
- Overviews
- Reports
- Wikimedia Embassy
- Project portals
- Country portals
- Tools
- Spam blacklist
- Title blacklist
- Email blacklist
- Rename blacklist
- Closure of wikis
- Interwiki map
- Requests
- Permissions
- Bot flags
- New languages
- New projects
- Username changes
- Translations
- Speedy deletions
- snippet for logging
- {{sbl-log|2313921#{{subst:anchorencode:SectionNameHere}}}}
Proposed additions
|
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (example.com, not http://www.example.com). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived. |
Nolo.com affiliate spam
nolo.com
See [1]. This user is pushing affiliate-links on wikipedia. I have already blacklisted godaddy.com, but nolo.com has a more difficult link, for which I do not trust my regex-knowledge enough. Please have a look at what regex would blacklist the affiliate-links. From nolo.com: "Now there's an easy way to offer your website visitors Nolo's quality products -- with no orders to ship, no customer service issues and -- best of all -- no overhead! If you have a website, you can partner with us at no cost to you, and start earning up to 15 percent commissions." EdBever 20:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comments:
- --A. B. (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi!
- Could you give some more examples of bad links and good links? What do those links look like? -- seth 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
jhgjkgjkgkjhg.tr.cx
tr.cx
Cross wiki spamming:
User:78.169.238.57(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:81.215.37.248(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%9Eablon:%C4%B0zlenimciler&diff=prev&oldid=8849670
- http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_C%C3%A9zanne&diff=prev&oldid=8849671
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.169.238.57
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.215.37.248
Added -- Wutsje 21:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've changed the various *.tr.cx to plain tr.cx. This appears to be a URL redirect/shortener service thus I've blocked the whole domain. EdBever 11:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- This may be too wide. Some sites on .tr.cz seem to be 'normal' sites, while others are redirects. This appears to be similar to .tk. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
wax-plant.com
wax-plant.com
See also WikiProject_Spam case
- Cross wiki spamming
- http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://hsb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://et.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
- http://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
. Thanks, --Hu12 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added. –BruTe talk 17:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
\binfluenzavirusnet\.com\b
\bdenguevirusnet\.com\b
\bgenetherapynet\.com\b
See also WikiProject_Spam case
influenzavirusnet.com
denguevirusnet.com
genetherapynet.com
- Cross wiki spamming
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nl:Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
- http://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
- http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
- http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
- http://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
- http://hi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
- http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.32.99.175
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.224.251.72
- http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/131.224.251.101
- http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/131.224.251.101
- http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/131.224.251.101
- http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/131.224.251.101
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cassie72
. Thanks, --Hu12 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added. Crosswiki spamming campaign for multiple, related, websites. --EdBever 09:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- One more related site:
chikungunyavirusnet.com
EdBever 09:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --EdBever 09:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nice catch on the las URL. Thanks again--Hu12 15:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
kiacell.com
kiacell.com
Related to recently blacklisted domains iranbattery.(com|ir) iranups.net fadakbattery.(com|ir) hamsangar.ir. MER-C 10:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --EdBever 12:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
xav.cc
xav.cc
xa.vc
URL shorteners. Gavia immer 05:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --EdBever 07:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
sorturl.net
sorturl.net
Url shortening service.
Currently I see two users (213.87.89.95, 213.87.91.7) using it to add links to zip files with viruses only on russian wikipedia. But I think it should be banned globally like other similar services. 213.85.69.114 11:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
chotalink.com
chotalink.com
URL shortener. MER-C 12:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
voipproviderslist.com and others
Domains:
voipproviderslist.com
ealexistexas.com
backlinksteam.com
mobile-service-providers.com
nextiva.com
telemarketingbase.com
usvoip.com
webadsservice.com
ebadsservice.com
motoequipment.org
Accounts:
User:46.109.69.105(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:46.109.69.241(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:67.231.243.84(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:81.36.41.112(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:83.55.60.57(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:96.44.175.228(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:Maris Jansons
Spam article:
- w:ru:Park & Fly Riga Airport - deleted twice
--A. B. (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposed additions (Bot reported)
|
|
This section is for domains which have been added to multiple wikis as observed by a bot.
These are automated reports, please check the records and the link thoroughly, it may report good links! For some more info, see Spam blacklist/Help#COIBot_reports. Reports will automatically be archived by the bot when they get stale (less than 5 links reported, which have not been edited in the last 7 days, and where the last editor is COIBot).
|
COIBot
The LinkWatchers report domains meeting the following criteria:
- When a user mainly adds this link, and the link has not been used too much, and this user adds the link to more than 2 wikis
- When a user mainly adds links on one server, and links on the server have not been used too much, and this user adds the links to more than 2 wikis
- If ALL links are added by IPs, and the link is added to more than 1 wiki
- If a small range of IPs have a preference for this link (but it may also have been added by other users), and the link is added to more than 1 wiki.
COIBot's currently open XWiki reports
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proposed removals
|
|
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section.
Remember to provide the specific domain blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a domain from the blacklist is not a vote; please do not bold the first words in statements. |
backupurl.com
backupurl.com
Added to the blacklist this May, for allegedly being an url shortener. Even though the point for blocking such sites has been made clear, it is not the case for this link, which is instead a web archiving service (useful, for example, to keep a record of the status of a media source page displaying the license of the work at the time an image is uploaded). Such services are important for this effect, since links cannot be added on demand to the archive.org cache. --Waldir 22:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- WebCite (webcitation.org) isn't blacklisted and will archive pages on demand. Any service like this (including archive.org) can in theory be used to avoid the blacklist, but they are also obviously useful for real tasks. The other issue is that such services are in a gray area with regard to copyright status, and I don't see that backupurl.com has any copyright information or contact info for copyright complaints. By contrast, archive.org and webcitation.org both have prominent information available in that regard. I don't see that removing this specific site would be a benefit, but the general issue probably does need some discussion. Gavia immer 04:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Last time I tried to use webcite it didn't work (I think the target page was returning an incorrect http header). That's why I tried backupurl, and I was surprised it was blocked. Regarding the usage for spamming, it's inconsistent to block it while keeping webcite clear. But considering the concerns you mention regarding copyright info, I think it can remain blocked. Could an administrator add a comment to the entry explaining this and linking to this thread? --Waldir 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 | It is requested that an edit be made to the fully protected article at Spam blacklist. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.
Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |
- Also, for future reference, here's another relevant thread: Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2010-10#Exeption for backupurl.--Waldir 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Windows8update.com
Windows8update.com
This is a valuable resource for Microsoft Windows 8 News that has real educational value for those interested in the next version of Windows. I am submitting this for removal from the blacklist.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.38.109.195 (talk)
- Not blacklisted here, but on en.wikipedia, ar.wikipedia and hi.wikipedia. Note, it does not seem to be related to Microsoft Office, but to a company (Nnigma Inc.). For more information, see en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2009. Here,
Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't being blacklisted on three wikis grounds for blacklisting here? MER-C 11:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
http:\\www.antiques-help.com
antiques-help.com
This is a valuable resource of information website, and not monetized. The information provided on the site was completely relevant to the pages it was linked from like: w:es:Comic book - Link: antiques-help.com/antiquecomicbooks ; or w:en:Barometer - Link: antiques-help.com/antiqueglassbarometer
With what logic this site antiques-help.com/antiquecomicbooks gets removed while this one http://www.comicsninja.com stays? considering that this site is obviously a monetized site and is not even working?
This is another example in this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocking_chair : why would this link antiques-help.com/antique-wooden-rocking-chairs be removed and not this one http://www.designboom.com/eng/education/rockingchair.html that has exactly 41 links from Wikipedia back to his site, isn't this considered spam?
For all the above mentioned reasons I request a removal from the blacklist. Thank you for your attention — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.154.152.95 (talk)
- Dear user, this link was spammed by various IP-addresses, among them 79.154.141.12. I would guess that you inserted these links. Your link was icked up by COIbot and I consider the way the links were inserted to be spam. You have only edited wikipedia in order to place these links. We do not judge other links unless they are suspected of having been spammed. The fact that another site was spammed does not mean you can spam your site, the same goes for murder in most countries. Furthermore, designboom, for example, was added over 300 times, but by a large number of editors (most of whom logged in, no more than 5 links per editor), between 2008-05-08 18:43:32 and 2011-01-17 09:31:36. You placed your link between 2011-01-02 14:23:44 and 2011-01-11 14:48:23. There is a difference between a helpful link inserted in a normal way by normal users from all over the wikipedia community (the community presumably deems the link relevant), or a link inserted by its owner. EdBever 12:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Declined. Per EdBever. -- Wutsje 12:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
easycalculation.com
easycalculation.com
This is site with online math and science calculators of very high educational value. I as a owner of the website can assure you that the site was never involved in any spamming in wikipedia. I request the removal of the site from spamlist.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.178.184.65 (talk)
- I see it is blacklisted on en.wikipedia and on ar.wikipedia, but not here. I think you will have to ask at the local blacklists on the wikis where it is blocked (these two - though if it is individually blacklisted on two wikis that suggests that some spamming was involved). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
genetherapynet.com etc
genetherapynet.com
denguevirusnet.com
chikungunyavirusnet.com
influenzavirusnet.com
These websites give a good overview and news items in their field and these are a valuable contribution to the content on specific Wiki pages. I understand that I violated the spam rules, I was unaware of this. Please remove these sites from the blacklist and let me know as a webmaster of these sites what to do to cleanup wiki. I talked about this already with user EdBever.
- As you talk with EdBever seem to have been in Dutch [4] (or did you discuss it elsewhere too?) that does not make me any wiser... In general, we usually don't delist pages that have been spammed upon the request of the site-owners - it would be a different issue if long term contributors to our projects asked for delisting, with an explanation why it would be useful to link to these particular sites. Finn Rindahl 22:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I discussed this with EdBever, but where can I discuss it also as you suggested. The mentioned site provide further information, news and background information on the related subjects, that is gene therapy (www.genetherapynet.com), Dengue virus (www.denguevirusnet.com), Chikungunya virus (www.chikungunyavirusnet.com) and influenza virus or flu (www.influenzavirusnet.com)
- The discussion mentioned above was merely my answer to your question. In short:
- The links are all related and have been spammed 50 times crosswiki
- The addresses involved are 86.90.87.37 (planet.nl) and 131.224.251.103 and 131.224.251.104 (both RIVM)
- The links have been placed since 30 December 2007.
- You have been warned on 13 November 2008 on en:User talk:86.90.87.37
- I do not dispute your claim that the site has useful and reliable content. The sites certainly appear to be useful, and might be used as references. You seem very knowledgable on the subject.
- That said, the blacklisting is because of spamming by someone who clearly has a conflict of interest regarding these links, although it appears you might have been acting in good faith.
- EdBever 20:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been looking at this as well. Ed is only mentioning the warning on 13 November 2008 on en:User talk:86.90.87.37 - I also found several warnings on Dutch talkpages (e.g. nl:Overleg_gebruiker:131.224.251.72, nl:Overleg_gebruiker:131.224.251.71). I especially will note the sequence involving the former of the two IPs):
- addition at 11 nov 2008 om 10:49
- warning at 11 nov 2008 10:51
- warning at 11 nov 2008 10:53
- addition at 11 nov 2008 12:39
- warning at 11 nov 2008 om 12:41
- extended warning at 11 nov 2008 13:09
- addition on 11 nov 2008 om 13:32
- block for a day 11 nov 2008, 13:33
- (there are intermediate remarks on the talkpage, and intermediate edits I did not include -
This looks that this specific editor that was behind 131.224.251.72 MUST have noticed the orange banner, and I think also the block. It seems it did not ring a bell ... neither did the rangeblock some time later, which took out the whole of the 131.224.251.0/24 range for a couple of days. I can not imagine that went unnoticed (which may be true for the warning on the English Wikipedia, which was hours after the last edit, and months before the next) ... I am sorry to see that we need the force of the blacklist to finally really get the attention ...
However, I do agree, this is all useful and suitable for use (one of these 4 links has been added by many others as well, showing usefulness, and other links of the RIVM are also widely in use). However, I would strongly suggest editors of the RIVM to look at the applicable policies and guidelines, e.g.:
- nl:Wikipedia:Wanneer_extern_linken
- en:Wikipedia:External links
- en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
- en:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not#SOAP
- en:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not#LINKFARM
- en:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not#DIRECTORY
- en:Wikipedia:Spam
Note, that you have a conflict of interest does not mean that you can not contribute, but it is asked of you to discuss, especially if editors show concerns. Going away for a couple of months and continuing without discussing is not solving the problem (and though I do suggest to remove the links from the blacklist, I hope that you understand that this really is the last warning). Also note, we do not say that the links are spam, but that your continued, undiscussed pushing of external links while being told to take care several times is not the way forward. Since you use multiple accounts, refuse to discuss, and perform this on multiple wikis forces us to blacklist these links - therefore, the continued pushing of good links is now damaging Wikipedia even more (and probably also the RIVM).
I am asking you to really consider what Wikipedia is (an encyclopedia), and to contribute in the spirit of Wikipedia (collaboratively). You have a wealth of information in your hands, and I am sure that, on several wikis, editors will want to work together with you/the RIVM to improve Wikipedia. With that, I will suggest that these links will be removed (or I will, after you have responded here). I hope this explains, thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Troubleshooting and problems
|
|
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above). |
entry finder
At the Moment the tool [5] will probably not find logentries from 2010, for Spam_blacklist/Log/Archive does not contain 2010 logs. Nevertheless this does harm the search for log entries, only. The sbl entries will still be found. -- seth 20:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
|
|
This section is for discussion of Spam blacklist issues among other users. |
In progress
- What's the benefit of adding {{status}} to removal requests?
- Does anyone feel like having a look at those old requests for removal that haven't been "in progress" for quite a while? Finn Rindahl 19:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I added the template. I added it because I wanted to see quickly which requests were handled and which or them were not since this page was (and is) too long. Feel free to remove it. --dferg ☎ talk 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Archiving errors caused by blacklisting
As noted by two users on en.wiki here, blacklisting can cause archiving problems if a link is mentioned on a talk page before it is blacklisted, as bots cannot add the link to the archive, meaning that many threads can be lost. Is there anyway this could be remedied? I think the easiest way would be for admins to check that the link isn't mentioned anywhere before adding it to the blacklist. Thanks Smartse 00:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, as Smackbot first tries to save a thread to the archive, and then blanks those threads from the original, I would say, that if Smackbot would run into a failure to save (the blacklist is not the only reason why that may happen, though probably the most frequent one and the easiest one to prevent) that it should not blank threads in the first place.
- (frustration follows, my apologies, nothing personal, the misunderstanding is common under most editors) That being said, the blacklist, as the rest of Wikipedia, is run by volunteers. Only a few of them, unfortunately. The size and scale of spam however, takes a lot of time (while some regulars here would also like to do other things, like actually building an encyclopedia). Cleaning up behind editors is an important task, but mainspace (template space included) is our first concern, and talkpages etc. are only a lower concern, and unfortunately we do not always get to clearing those links on talkpages.
- Solving this by first removing all the rubbish before blacklisting is unfortunately a total misunderstanding of the size of the problem. We blacklist when additions are uncontrollable, cleaning is a lower concern (especially since saving a page which already contains a blacklisting link is not a problem, the only problem is when one adds (in one form or another) a link to a page). If links first need to be cleaned, then you keep running behind the spammers, and the disruption continues.
- But of course, you are free to invite more editors here who can help solving the problem in the way you describe - but with the current number of editors active here, that will be an impossible task. Thanks for your understanding. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
polices
So who exactly polices this list? Who's to say some "member" comes in, bans his competitors claiming they were causing problems for him, and continues to police the entries he has now taken over. Sounds pretty far fetched huh. Yeah, right. With the weight google gives your listings it is exactly the type of thing a certain Australian reseller would do to gain advantage over his more successful US competitior. All one can hope for is natural law prevails and he is scanf out of here.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.144.58 (talk)
- You presume that links get blacklisted because someone complains. That is not the case, links get blacklisted because they are abused. Although your scenario is a possible case .. that does not mean that all is done to avoid that, or that the editors here would not be listening when editors show such concerns. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What's in a Name?
Maybe someone can tell us why Wikipedia still refers to it as a Spam Blacklist, when it also contains sites that are critical of Wikipedia, or which raise concerns of blatant censorship (such as the serendipty site)? Are the guardians of WP so afraid of criticism that they have to resort to calling it spam? IJAC 124.120.138.184 05:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are bug reports out for renaming this page. Regarding 'resort to calling it spam', I'd ask you to read en:WP:AGF and en:WP:SPAM - spam is not only about what is linked to, it can also be who are using it. We have had owners of very respectable sites massively pushing their site in order to have it promoted. That is what we call spam, and that is why we blacklist such sites sometimes. If you need it, there is always the whitelist on every project, and if you make your case telling why you need a specific page (not the main domain, of course), and why you think it makes a good source, then whitelisting is often not a problem. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Apparently the spam blacklist prevents linking to blacklisted sites in edit summaries as well as pages themselves. Is this a feature or a bug? It is really annoying not being able to use url shorteners in edit summaries - this is an ideal use for them. Steel 21:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- it's a feature. -- seth 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's also a feature to prevent articles from pointing to sites that are critical of WP and which have been banished to Blacklist hell.124.120.138.184 06:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be an ongoing paranoia on WP with short link providers, which really gets on my nerves, because you have blocked them ALL. tinyurl.com, bit.ly ... even though some of them are used by spammers, well what else can we use if Google Books and all use these long URLs? That's not our fault, is it? Sometimes it would come in handy to say (cf. bit.ly/whatever) even in the article summary, but this gets always auto-blocked. It sucks! All of you know well that the summary has a max character limit. So if the link is too long, I will always have to open a pseudo-discussion thread just to get this huge URL placed in full? Well, what a Brave New World this has become! -andy 77.190.32.112 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi!
- If you want to use a webpage as a reference, you should use the ref-tags. -- seth 10:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Andy, if you look in one of the addition-requests above, then you see exactly why we blacklist url shorteners on sight. It may be surprising, but we regularly catch spammers who use these sites to circumvent blacklisting (even worse, they spam not the real site, but the redirect site, in hope we 'forget' to do the real site so it is not noticed by those sites that scan the contents of the spam blacklist). They don't even need to be abused, they are simply not to be used.
- Regarding your desire to use a link in an edit summary to say 'cf. site' - what you should do is to actually use the full link in the text between <ref> and </ref> tags. Then your addition gets properly referenced, and anyone who reads the addition can find the reference. If you put it in the edit summary, then everyone who reads the addition has to a) go through the history and find who added it, and then see what you said in the edit summary. Moreover, if it is only slightly controversial, I would, on wikis where I can read the language, either immediately remove the addition as unreferenced, or ask for a citation using a proper tag. If you use that technique, you don't need to use the whole url in the edit summary.
- I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)