Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:31, 31 March 2008 editBobblehead (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users35,705 edits →freerepublic.com: add freerepublic.com← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:37, 6 January 2025 edit undoDan Leonard (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers3,413 edits →Proposed additions: added links used by Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hompp/Archive#31 December 2024 Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
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}}
	{{Template:Spam-blacklist header}}
			{{Spam-blacklist header}}
	{{adminbacklog}}
			<!-- {{adminbacklog}} -->
	]
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	]
			\| algo = old(30d)
			\| archive = MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/%(monthname)s %(year)d
			\| archiveheader = {{archive}}
			}}

	=Proposed additions=		=Proposed additions=
			{{Spam-blacklist 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}} or other appropriate ] then ].}}
	== thedanube.info ==
	*{{spamlink\|thedanube.info}}

			<!-- new addition requests go at the bottom of this section -->
	A typical advertisement website, used as "The Official Danube Site" in ]. ] (]) 13:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
	:{{staleIP}} ] (]) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

			==messagegirls.pp.ua==
	::I checked; this appears to have been a one-shot spamming that stopped after one warning
			* {{LinkSummary\|messagegirls.pp.ua}}
	::*]
			* {{LinkSummary\|frnctry.pp.ua}}
	::Normally we'll only blacklist after warnings don't work.
			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)
	::Thanks for keeping an eye out for this sort of junk, though. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 23:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

			:{{Defermetablack}}, cross-wiki problem. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	==learnerstv.com==

			==radarchronicle.com and theblazetimes.in==
	Continuing and unceasing spamming of two articles, promoting some pay-to-learn online site when the material is freely available. Forever changing IP addy, so blocks not effective. Bots don't seem to have a good strike rate, and the spamming has now been ongoing for over 2 months at and . Plenty of examples for diffs from those histories, for example:
			*{{LinkSummary\|radarchronicle.com}}
	*
			*{{LinkSummary\|TheBlazeTimes.in}}
	*
	*
	*
	*
	] (]) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Since XLinkBot started watching for this site, it caught the first time it was added but not the second. Not sure if second was missed, intentionally ignored, or I screwed up the regex for the site when I added it. But regardless, I've never seen an acceptable use of this site, but it is indeed often spammed to various articles (the Lewin ones are the most common but not the only targets) by throw-away anon IP accounts. ] reports:

			*{{IP user\|2403:a080:c04:4e13:c169:cafd:dcee:5b29}}
	:*]
			*{{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)
	:] (]) 18:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
	:{{deferspambot}} There are only two articles, there has been little disruption this month, and XLinkBot has reverted the last couple of issues. Recommend semi-protection in the case of it getting seriously out of hand. ] (]) 12:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

			:{{Added}} to ]. --<b>] ]</b> 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	==nationmultimedia.com/qvote==
			::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)
	There is an aggressive spammer, or maybe more correct someone abusing Misplaced Pages for his personal vendetta against Thailand and/or the Thai authorities, adding his soapbox texts into several articles, most commonly ]. One common thing about these entries is that he adds links to the forum of the newspaper ], which have the common form of nationmultimedia.com/qvote/... - though this link is not included always. Maybe it can help to stop this person at least a bit when he cannot add that link anymore. But mkake sure it's only the qvote subpage which gets blocked, other URLs from the Nation have to work as it is a common reference link. The IPs listed below are just the most recent ones, this goes on for months already. Blocking the IPs for longer times is not possible, as these belong to a Thai ISP and thus might block out other users.
			:::Definitely. Don’t hesitate to report if you want to. ] (]) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{IPSummary\|124.120.172.44}}
			::::Working on that now. Request created. ''']''' (]) 04:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{IPSummary\|58.8.204.180}}
	*{{IPSummary\|58.10.103.180}}
	*{{IPSummary\|58.8.211.50}}
	*{{IPSummary\|58.10.102.63}}

			==ipcb.com==
	] (]) 11:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
			*{{Link summary\|ipcb.com}}
	:{{moreinfo}} Please can you provide some diffs or the titles of the articles affected? ] (]) 12:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
			*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)

	::We can just use the edit histories (contribs) for a source of diffs.

			==Goldbroker==
	::I'm going to go ahead and blacklist nationmultimedia.com/qvote. There's no reason to quote the newspaper's forums since forums are unreliable sources (as opposed to the newspaper's articles).
			;Link
			*{{Link summary\|goldbroker.com}}
			Long term spamming, see . Recent activity . Please blacklist.-] (]) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

	::-~~-<font~~ ~~face="Futura">~~] ] ~~</font> 00~~:07, 30 ~~March~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		:{{rto\|KH-1}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 05:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			==advocatenarendersingh==
	:::{{Done}} --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 00:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
			;Link
			*{{Link summary\|advocatenarendersingh.com}}
			Long term spamming, see . Recent activity . Please blacklist.-] (]) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			:@] {{added}}. I also ran a CU and blocked all the recent accounts. ] \| ] 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	== systemid.com ==
	;Domain:
	*{{LinkSummary\|systemid.com}}
	;Spam accounts:
	*{{IPSummary\|67.107.70.147}}
	*{{IPSummary\|67.107.70.208}}
	;Spam diffs:



			==Multiple links==
	The shared IP (67.107.70.147) seems to be a continued source of SPAM. Warnings were posted to 67.107.70.147's talk page in July 2007 and September 2007. --] (]) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
			* {{Link summary\|datingagency.com.hk}}
			* {{Link summary\|datingapp.com.hk}}
			* {{Link summary\|pettravel.hk}}

			Commercial spam. These domain has already blacklisted on Chinese Misplaced Pages. --]]] 12:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I've given them last warnings. If it recurs, we will blacklist. In the meantime, here are additional domains and accounts for the record:

			:{{a note}} {{added}} to the global blacklist. - ] (]) 00:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:;Additional spammed and related domains:
	:*{{LinkSummary\|barcode-software.biz}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|bctp.com}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|informatics-inc.com}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|informatics-ltd.com}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|sos-depot.com}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|system3x.com}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|systemsid.com}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|waspbarcode.co.uk}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|waspbarcode.com}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|waspbarcode.de}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|waspbarcode.es}}
	:*{{LinkSummary\|wasplink.com}}

			==msnmag.co.uk==
			* {{link summary\|msnmag.co.uk}}
			* {{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}}

			Persistent spamming by multiple IPs. ] (]) 20:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:;Additional spam accounts:
			:{{Added}} to blacklist (and blocked the /22 range for good measure). <b>] ]</b> 20:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*{{IPSummary\|67.107.70.229}}
	:*{{IPSummary\|67.107.70.254}}
	:*{{IPSummary\|67.107.70.253}}
	:*{{IPSummary\|64.251.123.2}}
	:*{{UserSummary\|Systemwarehouse}}

			==usdolly.rocks==
	:{{Deferspambot}} --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
			* {{Link summary\|usdolly.rocks}}
			*{{Link summary\|pentasmoulding.com}}
			* {{User summary\|Mojakabira}}

			I think that user ] is trying to promote their own website and cryptocurrency by vandalizing the following page: ].
	==spam.greenday.net==
			They have created a new subsection and posted about this cryptocurrency and a link to the website.
	*{{spamlink\|greenday.net}}
			Website is just 34 days old and owner/admin of the website has the same username: https://usdolly.rocks/index.php/author/mojakabira/
	*{{spamlink\|diablocody.net}}
			Thank you.
	*{{spamlink\|martinmcdonagh.com}}
			] (]) 22:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{spamlink\|timolyphant.net}}
			:{{Defermetablack}}, cross-wiki problem. I've blocked the user in en. <b>] ]</b> 14:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{spamlink\|heathledger.com}}
			::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.
	*{{spamlink\|islafisher.com}}
			::But I don't know much about windsurfing though. ] (]) 21:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{spamlink\|foxboro-hottubs.com}}
	*{{spamlink\|transformers2.com}}
	*{{spamlink\|greenday.cc}}
	*{{spamlink\|tomcruise.net}}
	*{{spamlink\|tomcruise.cc}}
	*{{spamlink\|tomcruisediary.com}}

			== pakapepe.com ==
	heathledger.com is possibly unrelated but it was definitely spammed by multiple accounts. See ]. ] 06:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
			* {{LinkSummary\|pakapepe.com}}
			* {{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)

			==vtforeignpolicy.com==
			{{link summary\|vtforeignpolicy.com}}

			May be a a different domain of confirmed disinformation site '']'' as it was added to the corresponding article over a year ago. ] (]) 02:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Reference:
	::*]
	::*] <small>(permanent )</small>

			==sci-hubse.com==
	::Good job of tracking down all the accounts and domains
			{{link summary\|sci-hubse.com}}

			Multiple accounts have been spamming this fake ] domain: see ]. ] (]) 11:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::{{Done}} --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 23:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

			==Multiple links==
	== freerepublic.com ==
	* {{~~spamlink~~\|~~freerepublic~~.com}}		* {{LinkSummary\|joyfulmeanings.com}}
			* {{LinkSummary\|smartapkhub.com}}

			* {{LinkSummary\|crackeadosoft.com}}
	FreeRepublic.com is an unreliable source (self-published source) that includes a portion of a site that reprints articles from reliable sources (copyright violations). Most of the reprints actually include links to the reliable source's article, so the only reason they are being included is for traffic. FreeRepublic is itself a notable website, so freerepublic.com itself should be whitelisted, but at a minimum the area for the reprints (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news) should be blacklisted. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
			* {{LinkSummary\|8171alerts.pk}}
			* {{LinkSummary\|sheetzmenu.info}}
			Relevant IP range and users already blocked at SPI, see {{section link\|Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hompp/Archive\|31 December 2024}} for more details. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 01:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

	=Proposed removals=		=Proposed removals=
			{{Spam-blacklist proposed removals}}
	{{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}} or other appropriate ] then ].}}

			==Remove themoviedb.org/tmdb.org==
	http://home.teleport.com/~grladams/ ] (]) 13:55, 28 March 2008 (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.
	*Great news, Ive written a script that can archive this page given the templates that we use, I can create a approved archive along with a rejected archive if people are interested. ] 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	:"Interested" - bit of an understatement there :) Great news - please feel free to help/supply the script. I tend to leave stuff around a week in case anyone shouts or adds more (archives once done should be left alone). How would you handle the "discussion" type bits? Cheers --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	::First question, do you want approved and rejected request in separate archives? as for the discussions we could get Misza bot over here for things older than 30 days. ] 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::I would think one archive, seperate sections, like it is currently, not sure if the script can do that, but if so, doubt there would be objections in implementation...--] (]) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::There is no simple way of editing sections using the bot. (section editting is evil). it would just be one large archive. ] 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

			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.
	==blogspot.com==
	{{See also\|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Time_for_blacklisting_blogspot.com.2C_with_whitelisting_of_specific_domains.3F}}

			] (]) 07:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			:{{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==
	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)
			* {{LinkSummary\|blog.roblox.com}}
	: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)
			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.
			] (]) 05:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
			:{{deferwhite}} <b>] ]</b> 15:00, 22 November 2024 (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)
			:::Also, I think it was blacklisted because of the links possibly being used for spam and promotion. Is that correct? ] (]) 11:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			==www.halmblogmusic.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
			{{Link summary\|halmblogmusic.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!)
			halmblogmus.com is a music promotion platform which profile famous songs, artists as well as articles related to music. It seems that several artists have their main profile there. Links to the documents of halmblogmusic.com are often placed in Misplaced Pages articles as sources. As a consequence, it is not possible to publish an edit with such a link now. So I guess it should be removed. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:02, December 26, 2024 (UTC)</small>
	::# be confusing and frustrating to a lot of editors especially newbies, but also any who are not familiar with the blacklist/whitelist set up
	::# 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.
	::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.
	::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)

			:Added to block list here ]. Nunaklenam's first two edits in October 2024 were to change the url on the original request from halmblogmusic.com to halmblog.com . ''']''' (]) 04:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::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)

			=Discussion=
	::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. --] (]) 16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
			{{Notice\|This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are ]}}
	:::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)

	(unindent, crosspost my post from ])

			=Troubleshooting and problems=
	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).
			{{Notice\|This section is for technical problems with existing rules. Old entries are ]}}

	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)
	: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 ].<ref>primary reliable source stating that the blog is the official blog</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)

	::* {{spamlink\|blogspot.com}}
	::Crosspost spamlink template for blogspot.com to link this discussion to the linkreports from COIBot. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

	:::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)
	:::::There's no way we can realistically do this. blogspot has an Alexa traffic rank of 12 - it's higher than Amazon.com - and has well over 30,000 links on en.wp alone. Adding this would be incredibly disruptive to thousands of articles. Unless someone wants to go through all 32,000 links to find the ones that can be kept so we can whitelist them, there's no way we can do this. The ones that are spam should be removed and blacklisted, but ] and ] are not very good reasons to completely forbid links to a domain. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Though I agree that Misplaced Pages has a big blogspam problem, I also have to concede that there are too many legit blogspot links (e.g., bio subjects own blog) as SiobhanHansa noted. <b>] ]</b> 17:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	(unindent)blogspot.com is currently on ]'s ]. XLinkBot is designed to revert only non-autoconfirmed users, and will only do so a limited number of times. Assuming we emerge from our ], I think this would be an effective way of stemming the influx of inappropriate blogspot links. Established editors would still be able to add blogspot.com links and only new or changed links would be reverted - so it wouldn't interfere with non-autoconfirmed users editing pages that already contained a link. --]] 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

	I do not support blacklisting the http://www.blogspot.com. It is too generic to be blindly blacklisted --] (]) 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	* Help needed in accessing a reference. The reference http://tankerblog.com redirects to http://tankerblog.blogspot.com/, wondering if it a spam link?--] <font color="green">]</font> 15:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	**Its not obviously trying to sell something, so it would depend on how its being used. Depending on who writes it though, its probably not a good source to use as a reference. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 15:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
	***The references was added by an {{user\|63.164.145.198}} and I am not sure how to judge its autheticity?

	==Blacklist logging==
	<code><nowiki>{{WPSPAM\|0#section_name}}</nowiki></code> →(replacing '0' with the correct ).

	For example:

	<code><nowiki>{{WPSPAM\|182728001#Blacklist_logging}}</nowiki></code>

	results in:

	<blockquote>{{WPSPAM\|182728001#Blacklist_logging}}</blockquote>

	This should aid in requests originating from ] and for use with the entry log . I've added a snipit in the header --] (])



	== freerepublic.com ==
	{{spamlink\|FreeRepublic.com}}

	This is as a result of a discussion here about the usage of FreeRepublic.com as a reprinting service for a primary source. I was curious to see what other articles linked to FreeRepublic and found a small handful on en and on other languages. In looking into the specific links in article space what I'm finding is that FreeRepublic is often being used in lieu of linking to the actual source , where it exists in a web archive , or just to link to it in the external links section. I'm sure the articles were linked as references in good faith, but given that FreeRepublic is an unreliable source, should it be blacklisted and then whitelisted onto articles related to the site, added to one of the spambots, or periodically cleaned up by hand? --] <sup>]</sup> 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

	== tinyURL ==

	Per ]'s suggestion ], is there any reason not to block the entire tinyurl service? <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''11:53, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)''</small>
	:And others like it. Ie snipurl etc. They serve no purpose that I am aware of and potentially expose our readers to malicious links that would otherwise be visible or be picked up by the spam blacklist. ]] 11:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::For those who are unfamiliar with this site, the intent is to post a really short URL which tinyurl then redirects to a much longer URL. It's useful in some forum settings to copy-paste a tiny link to some website or video or whatever. In the context of this project, though, the only possible purpose for using such a site would be to obscure a link that would otherwise trigger the blacklist, either for spam purposes or something more malicious, as noted above. I think a general policy of blocking such sites would be justifiable both under ] and ] (as we can't verify what the link is without clicking). In the interim, though, tinyurl should definitely be blacklisted. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Both tinyurl and snipurl are blacklisted at ]. Any others should probably be proposed on the talk page there. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::Ok on further inspection the problem site in this case was actually azqq.com, a tinyurl-type service. Please blacklist that. Thanks. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''12:52, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)''</small>
	::::And now that I actually took the time to ''read'' your comment, zzuzz, I'll go over to meta :) Thanks. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''12:54, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)''</small>
	:::::{{done}} on Meta by the way! --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

	=== Addition to the COIBot reports ===
	The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

	# first number, how many links did ''this'' user add (is the same after each link)
	# second number, how many times did ''this'' link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
	# third number, how many times did ''this'' user add ''this'' link
	# fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did ''this'' user add ''this'' link.

	If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user do add a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

	For those with access to IRC, there this data is available in real time. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:37, 6 January 2025

"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.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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
Local blacklist ( talk archives logs) Special:BlockedExternalDomains (json) Local whitelist ( talk archives logs) Global blacklist ( talk archives logs) XLinkBot Revertlist ( talk archives logs)

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:

Proposed additions
Proposed removals
Troubleshooting and problems
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.

Does the site have any validity to the project?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 – 1267645828 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

→Snippet for logging: {{/request|1267645828#section_name}}
→Snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|1267645828#section_name}}
→A user-gadget for handling additions to and removals from the spam-blacklist is available at User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-blacklist-Handler

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Proposed additions

Instructions for proposed additions

Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.
Please only use the basic URL – example.com , not https://www.example.com.
Consider informing editors whose actions are discussed here.
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.

messagegirls.pp.ua

messagegirls.pp.ua: 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
frnctry.pp.ua: 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

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

radarchronicle.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
theblazetimes.in: 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

2403:a080:c04:4e13:c169:cafd:dcee:5b29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Ajmal V Mohammed (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)
AERCTANGE (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)

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)

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

ipcb.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.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. Constant314 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie 19:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Goldbroker

Link

goldbroker.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

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

@KH-1:

Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

advocatenarendersingh

Link

advocatenarendersingh.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

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

@KH-1

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

datingagency.com.hk: 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
datingapp.com.hk: 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
pettravel.hk: 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

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

Note:

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

msnmag.co.uk

msnmag.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Msnmag (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)
103.12.120.29 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
103.12.120.55 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
103.12.120.238 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
103.12.122.1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
103.12.122.102 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
103.12.122.197 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

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

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

usdolly.rocks

usdolly.rocks: 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
pentasmoulding.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Mojakabira (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)

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)

pakapepe.com

pakapepe.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
103.48.161.203 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
121.164.185.65 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
217.178.163.161 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
219.240.241.87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
222.101.185.56 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

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

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

vtforeignpolicy.com

vtforeignpolicy.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

May be a a different domain of confirmed disinformation site Veterans Today as it was added to the corresponding article over a year ago. ToThAc (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

sci-hubse.com

sci-hubse.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Multiple accounts have been spamming this fake Sci-Hub domain: see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex Aci. SmartSE (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Multiple links

joyfulmeanings.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
smartapkhub.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
crackeadosoft.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
8171alerts.pk: 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
sheetzmenu.info: 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

Relevant IP range and users already blocked at SPI, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hompp/Archive § 31 December 2024 for more details. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 January 2025 (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:
- example.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
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

themoviedb.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
tmdb.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

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:

User talk:Travisbell/Archive 1

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

blog.roblox.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.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)

Also, I think it was blacklisted because of the links possibly being used for spam and promotion. Is that correct? NicePrettyFlower (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

www.halmblogmusic.com

halmblogmusic.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com halmblogmus.com is a music promotion platform which profile famous songs, artists as well as articles related to music. It seems that several artists have their main profile there. Links to the documents of halmblogmusic.com are often placed in Misplaced Pages articles as sources. As a consequence, it is not possible to publish an edit with such a link now. So I guess it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunaklenam (talk • contribs) 14:02, December 26, 2024 (UTC)

Added to block list here MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August_2024#halmblogmusic.com. Nunaklenam's first two edits in October 2024 were to change the url on the original request from halmblogmusic.com to halmblog.com . Ravensfire (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Troubleshooting and problems

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

Categories: