Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:42, 12 January 2009 editAbd (talk \| contribs)14,259 edits →lenr-canr.org: add link to related request.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 08:55, 9 January 2025 edit undoNovem Linguae (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Interface administrators, Administrators50,965 edits →Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Spam blacklist?: add - This is regarding blacklisting the Heritage Foundation for their plans to harvest the IP addresses of Misplaced Pages editors.
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}}		{{Spam-blacklist proposed additions}}

			<!-- new addition requests go at the bottom of this section -->
	== Orthopedic cast page spam==

			==messagegirls.pp.ua==
	::There was also this to our ] article about the erotic use of "recreational
			* {{LinkSummary\|messagegirls.pp.ua}}
			* {{LinkSummary\|frnctry.pp.ua}}
			Links to this domain were added by various accounts including IPs and registered accounts here and on sister sites. ] 13:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

			:frnctry.pp.ua is also frequently added to articles by this spam farm. ] 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	casts" along with links to three more related web sites:
	::*{{LinkSummary\|brokenangelz.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|castedmemories.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|swedishcrutch.com}}

			:{{Defermetablack}}, cross-wiki problem. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	::These are addditional related domains:
	::*{{LinkSummary\|007footfetish.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|0101footworld.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|0hourasiangirls.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|1choicedating.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|1hotasianfootfetish.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|1hotfootfetish.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|a1footfetish.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|abc-links.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|asean-girls.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|ejzbrokenangelz.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|truemeaningoflife.org}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|leg-cast.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|paracathy.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|sakura-girls.com}}
	::--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

			==radarchronicle.com and theblazetimes.in==
			*{{LinkSummary\|radarchronicle.com}}
			*{{LinkSummary\|TheBlazeTimes.in}}

			*{{IP user\|2403:a080:c04:4e13:c169:cafd:dcee:5b29}}
	::::{{Added}} additional domains -- kinky casts and all. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
			*{{User Summary\|Ajmal V Mohammed}}
			*{{User Summary\|AERCTANGE}}

			These are both "news" website being pushed by a spammer, probably also related to ]. ''']''' (]) 17:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	The original whitelist request that led to these editor-blacklisted sites has already been denied/closed and nobody has suggested they be whitelisted or kept. So I created this Orthopedic cast topic thread in the blacklist area and moved these newly blacklisted site references to it to maintain a document of historic and ongoing vendor spam abuse on the Orthopedic Cast topic. I hope its the right editing protocol and apologize if not.

			:{{Added}} to ]. --<b>] ]</b> 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	The latest/newest vendor spam to be removed from the orthopedic cast page is:
			::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)
			:::Definitely. Don’t hesitate to report if you want to. ] (]) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Working on that now. Request created. ''']''' (]) 04:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			==ipcb.com==
	::*http://suppliescentral.net
			*{{Link summary\|ipcb.com}}
	::**{{LinkSummary\|suppliescentral.net}}
			*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)

	The Orthopedic cast topic has been spammed in the past with spoofed / proxy / dynamic IP's posting commercial pay sites -- so suggest that blacklisting the offending referenced pay sites (as the editor did with the sites above) is probably more productive in killing off this spam then tracking dodgy IP contributors who may or not be what they appear.

			==Goldbroker==
	In addition to the above blacklisted links, previous vendor spam references to this page, some by suspect IP posts, have included:

	::*http://www.castlinks.com
	::**{{LinkSummary\|castlinks.com}}
	::*http://www.castfetish.com
	::**{{LinkSummary\|castfetish.com}}
	::*http://www.castplanet.com
	::**{{LinkSummary\|castplanet.com}}
	::*http://www.footmodel.de
	::**{{LinkSummary\|footmodel.de}}

	]


	::::Thanks for the report.

	::::I've run link reports on those five domains and I am not seeing any persistent spamming in the recent past:
	::::*]
	::::*]
	::::*]
	::::*]
	::::*]
	::::Sometimes these reports miss things -- are there any additions I should be aware of?
	::::--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 06:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

	Will keep an eye out for others. They pop up as single entry citations by vendor sites now and again typical of the latest one.

	] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:::::Thanks!

	:::::FYI, we normally look for 3 to 4 warning across all accounts before we consider blacklisting, so don't forget to give escalating warnings from the grid at ]. It also helps to put a live link (with the http://) to the spam site on the user talk page so we can find all the user accounts. Don't get indignant -- just give a warning an move on.

	:::::I hope this helps. Thanks again for your work on this. We take help from all quarters. --13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

	== unclesirbobby.org.uk ==
	;Link		;Link
			*{{Link summary\|goldbroker.com}}
	*{{LinkSummary\|unclesirbobby.org.uk}}
			Long term spamming, see . Recent activity . Please blacklist.-] (]) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			:{{rto\|KH-1}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 05:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Editors
	*{{IPSummary\|86.128.42.28}}
	*{{IPSummary\|86.136.155.80}}
	*{{IPSummary\|86.128.225.89}}
	*{{IPSummary\|86.128.228.1}} - level 4 warning
	*{{IPSummary\|86.128.40.91}} - level 4 warning
	*{{IPSummary\|86.128.10.17}}
	*{{IPSummary\|86.128.235.199}}
	*{{IPSummary\|88.105.111.14}}
	*{{IPSummary\|88.105.90.186}}
	*{{IPSummary\|212.140.128.142}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Unclesirbobby}}

			==advocatenarendersingh==
	There was a big effort to get this link included in several dream articles at the beginning of this year (see IPs with warnings). Editor has been back several times over the last year. Spamming is slow and almost always with a different IP address so blocks and protection are impractical as deterrents. Requesting blacklisting. -- ] 18:11, 3 November 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)
	:{{Added}}. Thanks for reporting. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

			==Multiple links==
	::Related domain that has also been spammed scarboroughphotos.org.uk :
			* {{Link summary\|datingagency.com.hk}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|scarboroughphotos.org.uk}}
			* {{Link summary\|datingapp.com.hk}}
	::*{{IPSummary\|86.128.235.122}}
			* {{Link summary\|pettravel.hk}}
	::Thanks -- ] 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

			Commercial spam. These domain has already blacklisted on Chinese Misplaced Pages. --]]] 12:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	== dnabaser.com rnabaser.com and sequence-assembler.com ==

			:{{a note}} {{added}} to the global blacklist. - ] (]) 00:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{LinkSummary\|dnabaser.com}}
	*{{LinkSummary\|sequence-assembler.com}}
	*{{LinkSummary\|rnabaser.com}}
	See also ] history and ]

			==msnmag.co.uk==
	Somewhat sophisticated attempts to promote these related products by:
			* {{link summary\|msnmag.co.uk}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Madrigal12}}
			* {{User summary\|Msnmag}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Wk master editor}}
			* {{IP summary\|103.12.120.29}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Fedra}}
			* {{IP summary\|103.12.120.55}}
	appear now to have devolved into simple spamming by ]:
			* {{IP summary\|103.12.120.238}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Mirc007}}
			* {{IP summary\|103.12.122.1}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Yard05er}}
			* {{IP summary\|103.12.122.102}}
	*{{UserSummary\|Applyalert1}}
			* {{IP summary\|103.12.122.197}}
	Since requests not to spam to the other accounts appear to have lead to the use of these throwaway accounts am requesting blacklisting. -- ] 12:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

			Persistent spamming by multiple IPs. ] (]) 20:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:IP {{IPSummary\|85.16.163.218}} continuing to spam. -- ] 13:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
			:{{Added}} to blacklist (and blocked the /22 range for good measure). <b>] ]</b> 20:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			==usdolly.rocks==
	::{{Added}} --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:16, 2 December 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: ].
	:I have just added \bcubic\.3x\.ro\/free-dna-tools\/index\.html\b, a page on a free server that redirects to these sites. Some records:
			They have created a new subsection and posted about this cryptocurrency and a link to the website.
			Website is just 34 days old and owner/admin of the website has the same username: https://usdolly.rocks/index.php/author/mojakabira/
			Thank you.
			] (]) 22:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{Defermetablack}}, cross-wiki problem. I've blocked the user in en. <b>] ]</b> 14:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I think ] article additions were legitimate and pentasmoulding.com is just a regular website, the page linked in the article mentions Ten Cate Sports a lot.
			::But I don't know much about windsurfing though. ] (]) 21:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			== pakapepe.com ==
	* 55 records; Top 10 editors who have added dnabaser.com: Fedra (29), ClueBot (10), Madrigal12 (7), 85.16.163.218 (2), SiobhanHansa (1), 85.16.167.231 (1), Yard05er (1), Mirc007 (1), Wk master editor (1), AVBOT (1).
			* {{LinkSummary\|pakapepe.com}}
	* 7 records; Editors who have added rnabaser.com: Fedra (4), Madrigal12 (2), SiobhanHansa (1).
			* {{IPSummary\|103.48.161.203}}
	* 1 records; Editors who have added sequence-assembler.com: Applyalert1 (1).
			* {{IPSummary\|121.164.185.65}}
	* 11 records; Editors who have added cubic.3x.ro: 85.16.163.200 (5), 85.16.162.33 (3), 85.16.163.181 (2), 85.16.163.194 (1).
			* {{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==
	:I suggest immediate blacklisting of any other domains/links used to circumvent blacklisting here, and that IPs in this range (85.16.0.0/16 - EWETEL-DYNDSL-POOL9 - DE) who edit unconstructively on the page ] are ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
			{{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)
	:Forgot to mention that I yesterday added '\bdownload3k\.com\/Install-DNA-BASER-sequence-assembling-tool\.html\b', as it was used to lead again to (this time a download site for) DNA Baser. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

	==~~clickwrestle~~.com==		==sci-hubse.com==
			{{link summary\|sci-hubse.com}}
	This site was mass added today even after warnings. The site promises video clips of particular professional wrestlers. However the links lead to a subscription site which requires payment and membership to view the videos. I think most all of the links have been removed but they do seem to come back.

			Multiple accounts have been spamming this fake ] domain: see ]. ] (]) 11:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{LinkSummary\|clickwrestle.com}}

			==Multiple links==
	*{{UserSummary\|Slightlysasha}}
			* {{LinkSummary\|joyfulmeanings.com}}
	*{{IPSummary\|99.149.66.46}}
			* {{LinkSummary\|smartapkhub.com}}
	*{{IPSummary\|66.+92.222.27}}
			* {{LinkSummary\|crackeadosoft.com}}
			* {{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)

			==Encyclopaedia Metallum==
	Thank you for your time. ]<sub>]</sub> 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
			{{LinkSummary\|www.metal-archives.com}}

			There is long-standing consensus ], and ], that Encyclopaedia Metallum/Metal Archives is unreliable as a source since it is ] content, similar to Misplaced Pages. It nonetheless constantly gets added as a source. I wasn't opposed to it as an external link, but at this point, I think any potential value to that (which was slim to begin with since the type of information on there should be in more reliable sources, anyway, or else on ]) is offset by the sheer amount of continuous misuse in articles and lists.--] (] \| ]) 14:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

	::I did some checking. Black Pants Productions also owns these domains:
	::*{{LinkSummary\|allprowrestling.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|amazingkong.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|bayareawrestling.net}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|blackpants.net}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|carnycentral.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|caulifloweralleyclub.org}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|cheerleadermelissa.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|chickfight.tv}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|clickfighters.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|clickwrestle.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|femalefightleague.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|onlineWorldOfWrestling.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|opseum.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|prowrestling-revolution.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|prowrestlingdaily.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|prowrestlingdigest.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|revolucionluchalibre.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|wrestlinwally.com}}
	::--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

	==visataxes.com==
	;Spam domain:
	*http://www.visataxes.com
	**{{LinkSummary\|visataxes.com}}


	;Spam accounts:
	*{{IPSummary\|136.141.2.76}}
	*{{IPSummary\|68.236.18.72}}
	*{{UserSummary\|International tax expert}}
	*{{IPSummary\|68.82.138.57}}
	*{{IPSummary\|68.82.134.203}}
	*{{IPSummary\|76.160.217.138}}


	;Spam-only user page:
	*]
	--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
	::{{IPSummary\|71.226.253.124}}<br> Continued after final warning. No additions since.--] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


	== amazonkindlecheap.com ==
	Periodically appears on ], although when I looked at it just now, it was a deadlink. Still, no reason for such an obvious (to me) spammy link.

	{{linksummary\|amazonkindlecheap.com}}

	] ] ] 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

	== lenr-canr.org (original thread) ==
	{{archive top}}
	Long-term spamming and use to push fringe views in {{la\|Cold fusion}}, see also ]. Links actively being promoted by the site owner (e.g. ) in continued furtherance of a real-world dispute which has spilled over onto Misplaced Pages. Inappropriate as a source due to polemic and fringe advocacy, includes material hosted in violation of original publisher's copyright. Adding now, and listing here for transparency. Also newenergytimes.com seems to be apart of the same problem. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

	:This was added, as noted; this addition by JzG appears to have supported his preferred content, making reversion of some edits of his, the same day, impossible. I have requested removal below.

	:The site is a library of articles on the topic of cold fusion. I have not checked it for balance, but even if it is only a library of articles selected with a bias, it could still be usable under some conditions. I'm concerned that a private decision that some individual is linkspamming -- he presents no evidence of this, the post diff'd above doesn't show it, but is a legitimate, on the face, Talk page reference to the site, signed by the librarian -- is resulting in the loss of a highly useful resource for copies of articles; the site's own content would be, most likely, unusable, depending on details I don't know; but what JzG broke was citations ''of articles'' with links to copies of the articles on the site. Thus what could be easy verification by any reader becomes difficult; the reader will have to go to a library that has a copy of the journal involved. As to the claim of copyright violation, the site claims that permission has been obtained for its content. As I understand the matter, we are not responsible for copyright violation by a site we do not control, and absent clear evidence that a site is massively in violation, which raises other issues, this should not be a reason to prohibit links to the site. In any case, the arguments JzG presents, above, are content issues and should be resolved by ordinary editorial consensus, not by administrative fiat, unless some clear and serious policy violation is involved, which has not even been alleged. I do not get, as an editor, to decide unilaterally that some source is inappropriate, and neither should any admin be able to decide that and enforce it with his tools. --] (]) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}

	See discussion below, ] --] (]) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	Link fixed due to subject name change below.--] (]) 18:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	==Hott Media, UK (www.hottmedia.net)==
	{{IPSummary\|195.160.253.4}}<br />
	] has used this IP since 11 March 2007 to insert promotional links to blogs and entertainment/music artist websites such as and Editor which editor described as "A private media company that facilitates the needs of many commercial record labels and unsigned artists." -<b><span style="background:black"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="gold">Ro</font></font></span>Bo<span style="background:gold"><font face="Arial"><font color="white">Tam</font></font></span></b>] 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

	== ED ==
	*{{LinkSummary\|encyclopediadramatica.com}}

	I just tried to view the page history of a page on ED and my anti-spyware detector went off that the page was trying to edit my registry. Now every couple of minutes I get a random popup for {{LinkSummary\|pantomi.com}}. I think a page that is known to download malware to users computers would be a good addition for this list. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

	*You'll want to add <code>\bencyclopediadramatica\.com\b</code> ] (]) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

	* It's on the meta blacklist, only the main page can be linked (through whitelisting) and I would say that anyone who links that anywhere other than in the article on ED should be banninated. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

	*I have never encountered malware on ED. Shame that other person withdrew their comment. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	==farecompare.com==
	* {{linksummary\|farecompare.com}}
	I am in the process of blacklisting and purging the many hundreds of spam links to this price comparison site, added as spurious references to large numbers of articles. Herby spotted this one, kudos to him. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Ive seen this spam before. needs blacklisted. ] 14:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
	::FYI: past discussions on the links (no objections to removal of the links):
	::*] - WP:AIRPORTS talk archive
	::*] - WT:WPSPAM talk archive
	::*] - WT:WPSPAM talk archive
	::--- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 04:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

	==nonciclopedia.wikia.com==
	* {{linksummary\|nonciclopedia.wikia.com}}
	Another ] off-shoot which never needs to be linked anywhere and has been spammed on ]. Has potential to be spammed by the sites users like what happened with uncy.--] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

	== f1portal.net ==
	*{{Linksummary\|f1portal.net}}
	*Per ]. Thank you ] <sup>] ]</sup> 12:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

	== undergroundcashsecret.com ==
	*{{Linksummary\|undergroundcashsecret.com}}

	Accounts:

	* {{IPvandal\|74.69.23.175}}

	* {{vandal\|Infoleague}}

	MLM marketing scheme, user MO is to replace valid links with this URL. - ] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

	==indianservers.com==
	{{linksummary\|indianservers.com}}
	See ]  '''— ].]''' \| <sup>]</sup> 03:12, 12 January 2009 (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==
	==tinyurl==
			* {{LinkSummary\|themoviedb.org}}
	i understand that we dont want spam in article contents, but why is tinyurl blocked ? it's very useful to make urls more useable. we should err ont he side of useability, even if that means a few links are put up that are not strictly "encyclopedic".
			* {{LinkSummary\|tmdb.org}}
	* {{declined}} Because it can be used to circumvent the blacklist. <b>] ]</b> 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

			Request to remove themoviedb.org from Local Blacklist.
	==facebook links==
	why is facebook blocked as link ?
	fast, facebook is becoming a place for publishing corporate and other legit info that is more trustworthy than any of the media site, doubtful blogs etc that are routinely allowed in wikipedia !
	please consider removign this block.
	* {{declined}} It does not meet ] guidelines. <b>] ]</b> 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

			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.
	==aceshowbiz.com==
	Why is this blacklisted, seems legit to me? ] ([[User
	talk:Andre666\|talk]]) 13:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
	* Because it was spammed prolifically. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
	] (]) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I manage aceshowbiz.com, I need to know when did our website spam prolifically ? Did it happen lately or many years ago ? We have many worth suggest article such as exclusive interview with Demi Lovato (Celebrity News, Sep 18, 2008). Please consider unlisted our website from your spam list as there is no such action for years. Many years ago aceshowbiz.com just a small website, right now we've already doing partnership with many big / reliable company. There is no time for us thinking for spamming. Just quality. Please take a visit to our website an consider. Thank You.
	* Sorry, but it fails our ] so is unlikely to be delisted any time soon. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

			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.
	::;Domain blacklisted on meta:
	::*{{LinkSummary\|aceshowbiz.com}}
	::Google Adsense ID: 5315453046799966
	::servedby.advertising.com: site=72134

			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.
	::;Related domains:
	::*{{LinkSummary\|actressmodels.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|alwayscelebrity.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|alwayscollections.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|alwaysgirls.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|celebrity-image.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|celebrity-mania.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|celebrity-portal.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|celebs-gallery.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|godesktop.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|movies-studio.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|sport-gallery.com}}
	::*{{LinkSummary\|videogamesmania.com}}
	::These should be evaluated for blacklisting as well.

			] (]) 07:13, 21 September 2024 (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==
	::;References:
			* {{LinkSummary\|blog.roblox.com}}
	::*]
			I'm creating a wikipedia article on the late co-founder of Roblox, Erik Cassel. But the only reliable sources of him are from blog.roblox.com links. The blog.roblox.com domain is the official blog maintained by employees of ROBLOX Corporation, giving accurate information about the company. The specific links are a tribute written by the current founder, and an interview with the person in question. I tried to go through the whitelist, but apparently the whole thing is blacklisted.
	::*]
			The article on Erik Cassel would benefit from these sources, as it provides first-hand details about his professional achievements, contributions to ROBLOX, and personal qualities. This information is otherwise unavailable in comparable detail and reliability.
	::*]
			] (]) 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==
			{{Link summary\|halmblogmusic.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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:02, December 26, 2024 (UTC)</small>

			: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)
	::;Comments for the site-owner:
	::], we typically do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their ''encyclopaedic'' value in support of our ''encyclopaedia'' pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed. You'll note that we've already whitelised some of your pages on such a basis.

			=Discussion=
	::The global ] is used by more than just our ]+ ] wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ ] wikis plus a substantial percentage of the that run on our ] software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in these links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
			{{Notice\|This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are ]}}

			==Discussion at ]==
	::Unlike Misplaced Pages, ] is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
			] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. This is regarding blacklisting the Heritage Foundation for their plans to harvest the IP addresses of Misplaced Pages editors. –] <small>(])</small> 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->

	::{{Declined}} --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

	::::I'd like to request why this is blacklisted still. Any site can be spammed by a crazed editor that ]. It does not appear to get its information from "users", like some of the other sources we continue to allow to exist. Theoretically, IMDb is "spammed" on every Wiki page related to film and TV, and they are not considered "reliable sources of information". ] ] 14:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

	:::::Bignole, once in a blue moon we see the crazy uninvolved editor that spams a site, but that's very rare. In this case, all the spam edits traceroute to a location in Indonesia, unlike our zillion IMDB links that have been added by established editor from around the world.

	:::::Even though you're an established user, I'm reluctant to remove the entire domain from the blacklist since, based on this domain's history, I lack confidence the site-owner won't go back to persistently spamming us. Are there particular aceshowbiz pages you'd like to see ]? --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 16:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

	::::::I'm slightly confused. You said the site-owner is the spammer, but then said you traced the spamming to a location in Indonesia. I cannot find any indication that the website's homebase, or any base, is in Indonesia. Did the site-owner admit to being the spammer or something?

	::::::Regardless, the only reason I care is because I was trying to find sources to verify the Teen Choice Award nominations for ] for the ] article, which is currently under GAC. People do not tend to report on general award '''nominations''', so finding any reliable mentioning of it has been extremely difficult. I cannot use IMDb, because it is currently snubbed from usage completely (which I generally agree with, but not entirely, as such, there is a current ] in the works that would allow editors to cite things like Awards, and other information that is less controversial). I came across this link--'''''<nowiki>http://www.aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/kristin_kreuk/awards.html</nowiki>'''''--where AceShowBiz actually has a profile for Kreuk's awards. It takes care of all that I need. Since AceShowBiz does not get its info from users, at least as far as I can tell from their page and which is a big issue with why we typically don't use IMDb (because we cannot tell exactly who it is coming from), AceShowBiz won't be criticized as much as IMDb would be. ] ] 16:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Something which is that hard to source almost certainly fails ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

	==scififantasyfiction. suite101. com==
	I want to use this article as a reference is an article about Homosexuality in SF. It looks like a reliable source, and the interviewee is notable. I assume it was blacklisted for a spamming reason, but it remains a useful reliable source (this interview is not hosted elsewhere).] (]) 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
	::Ah, i see this site has much spamming, therefore i requested white-listing of just that page instead.] (]) 14:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

	== mapsofworld.com ==
	Why is this site blacklisted? I was going to use <nowiki>http://finance.mapsofworld.com/company/i/idemitsu-kosan.html</nowiki> for a reference. Is it a spam site? --] (]) 21:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

	::Background:
	::*]
	::*]
	::*]
	::*]
	::*]
	::*]
	::*]
	::*]
	::*{{IPSummary\|61.247.238.182}}
	::*{{UserSummary\|Moneywatch}}
	::*{{IPSummary\|59.144.165.88}}
	::*{{UserSummary\|Nalini_sharma1984}}

	::If you just need to reference a specific page, then you can request it's link be "whitelisted" at ].

	::{{Deferwhite}}--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

	::* That's a lot of links and many of them are to bot-generated pages full of even more links. It seems that somebody unrelated to mapsofworld.com was persistently adding links for that and other sites to many articles over a year ago. If there is no indication that mapsofworld.com was behind the edits, can we just unlist the site? The person who added all the links is probably gone by now. --] (]) 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
	:::* I think it should stay blacklisted per the above report. If there are specific pages containing reliable info that can't be found elsewhere, specific-url `whitelisting ''may'' be appropriate. <b>] ]</b> 19:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
	::::* Yes, there is whitelisting, but that is quite bureaucratic and troublesome. I couldn't find any evidence of one user persistently spamming this link. It has been added here and there, but probably by unrelated people. Am I missing something in the above report? There a really too many links to make much sense of it. --] (]) 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
	::::: I've personally done mass rollbacks on spamming campaigns of this site (at least a year ago). The obnoxious pop-up advert doesn't help it's case either. <b>] ]</b> 19:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Oh, I didn't notice because of Firefox, AdBlock and NoScript. Looking at it in IE, it sure looks like a spam site. I wonder if they stole the text I'm referencing from somewhere else. --] (]) 19:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: I have the same setup, except I don't use noscript (though Firefox warns me about the popup before it loads it). AdBlock is handy for letting you see quickly what ads have been blocked. A few of the folks here are diligent about correlating AdWord id with other sites, which often turn out to be spam targets as well. <b>] ]</b> 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

	== Whitehat.servehttp.com ==
	I have no idea why this was blacklisted. I used it quite only on my page, and once as a link for some article on different radixes in math, cause i have a base converting applet. --] (]) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
	:the whole domain servehttp.com is blacklisted on meta, see . -- ] (]) 02:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
	:: Oh i see, its blocked cause its a free domain name. I guess ill still use this site in talk pages if i need to i guess. Well in this case there are still domains missing from the same provider. --] (]) 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
	:: Is it possible to get it whitelisted? And where should i sugest the removeal of the other free domain names? Here or on meta? --] (]) 18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
	:::Individual pages may be whitelisted on the application of an established user at ]. If you want to apply for a domain to be removed from the meta blacklist, see ]. ] (]) 14:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

	==sveti-stefan.net==
	This is very educatible, full of information web site and helpfull becouse it can be used like a tourist guide. End it's the only one wich a point is exactly that place from topic. I propose to remove this website from the black list because it's good to have such site offer in wikipedia story about Sveti Stefan and this site is not a spam site for shure. Thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	* {{declined}}. Your only contributions to Misplaced Pages are linking this site and then asking for it to be removed from the blacklist after it was blacklisted due to spamming. I think you may be looking for DMOZ, which, unlike Misplaced Pages, is a link repository. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

	Dear Sir, I didn't know that I have to be a big contributor to get opportunity to offer that one site can be removed from the black list. I didn't expect to get an answer in a pejorative manner like this one. I am serious man and I don't like that someone speak with me like this. That is not nice, that was just my opinion that this site is very proper for the topic (Sveti Stefan) especially when I sow other links. Thanks for your advice, it's not necessary. Good by! <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== strivinglife.com ==
	Greetings. This site has three transcripts of interest (only two of which were linked to from Misplaced Pages pages. See ] and ]. Sites were removed under the assumption that they were spam (due to the fact that a redirecting link, on another article, was corrected; and that article didn't need to have said link), but transcripts are particuarly relevant for the latter, and to some extent for the former (albeit being an English translation, supposedly that may fall under ''original research''. If I would have known that correcting redirecting links would have caused so much trouble, I wouldn't have bothered correcting ... ] (]) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
	:Here's what caused the block: http://meta.wikimedia.org/User:COIBot/XWiki/strivinglife.com Note that the Waking Life was an addition, still up for discussion, and the Biological update was a link correction, ''not'' a link addition. If I should be posting this elsewhere, please let me know. ] (]) 01:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
	* {{declined}}, noting in passing the ], this does not appear to be a ] (self-published) and we already have much better resources available for these subjects; in addition at least one appears to be a ] and thus ineligible as an external link. In any case it is blacklisted on the meta blacklist not here, see ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

	==www.historyhouse.co.uk/essexg05a.html==

	I tried to add this link to the history section of the ] article. It contains interesting information about the history of the town from an 1848 publication. I was therefore surprised to see that it's regarded as spam and blocked. I can only presume that there have been problems with it in the past. I have no connection with anyone running the site, I found it when looking for online sources about the town's history, a subject which is only very briefly touched on by the Misplaced Pages article. Since the site also contains further interesting sections from White's Directory of Essex (1848) in relation to other small towns in Essex, I might further wish to refer to it when developing similar articles. Would it please be possible to remove either the site or the page mentioned above from the list? Obviously if this is a problem I'll look for other sources, however this site seems to have several worth referring to in one convenient location.
	] (]) 11:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
	* I think you want the whitelist, since it's only a single link. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

	* Thanks. This is the first time I've encountered this problem, so I wasn't quite sure how to go about it.
	] (]) 05:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

	==www.drakecircus.com==

	There has been a continual and ongoing disruption of the ] article by several disruptive editors. Their preferred method is to removed the official website address of the article's subject. This address has not been spammed and so far as I know only appears on the article itself which is quite within the rules of WP. After the protection has been removed from the article one of the disruptive IPs has removed the link once again. We have not been able to revert the edit due to this address having appeared somehow on the spam filter (no doubt requested by one of these disruptive editors. I'd be grateful if this entry could be removed from the filter as it should never have been there in the first place. Thanks. --]''' 00:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
	*A user with a dynamic IP had been adding the link, and promotional content about the shopping centre, to random articles, but this was probably the same user who was removing the link from the ] article in an attempt to have it added to the blacklist. It was added to the blacklist on 14 November by ] (who is currently on a wikibreak and not an administrator). —] 20:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

	::It was being spammed across a number of pages (including user ones) at the time. That was disruptive & that is what the list is for. I am no longer an admin & only watch limited areas of the project due to time issues.
	::Whatever else it was correct to list it given the disruption being caused by people placing the link. --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 12:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	{{tl\|editprotected}}
	The link has been removed from the ] article by an IP, and I tried to revert but I am currently unable to because of the blacklist (the blacklist would also prevent other users from editing the article without removing the link ). See comments above for an explanation of why it was added to the blacklist – a more appropriate solution, if the link continues to be used for vandalism, would be to add it to ].
	—] 20:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

	Webhamster's summary at the top of this section is right in places but wrong where pointed out by Snigbrook and Herbythyme. The URL was indeed spammed in unlikely places either by IPs or by throwaway accounts (I now forget which) who were unconvincingly posing as tenants of this shopping mall. ('s just one crass example.) At the same time the presence of the URL within the article on this shopping mall was repeatedly (and tiresomely) opposed by IPs as worthless and spam. I can agree with the latter IPs that the website is uninformative and uninteresting. (It's the site of a shopping mall, so one can hardly expect more.) Because it's uninformative and uninteresting, I find it very hard to imagine any legitimate reason ever to link to it from anywhere other than this one article. And because IPs are tireless in expressing their loathing of this shopping mall, the ] spamlinks elsewhere are likely to reappear. If User:XLinkBot/RevertList does what its name suggests, it will allow some irritating person with an endless supply of IP numbers to waste WP resources. I think the domain should instead stay blacklisted. (My own inclination after hours and hours wasted over this uninteresting article: Unblacklist the domain to let it be added to this article, edit the article, protect the article indefinitely, and reblacklist. But no doubt this would violate various policies.) -- ] (]) 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	:Hoary's final piece in brackets seems perfect to me :). The only difference to me is (fortunately) I've not wasted hours on the (remarkably) uninteresting article. --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 15:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	::To be honest I don't really care what happens either to the article or to the link, what does piss me off though is when wankers 'win' by gaming the system. In my eyes it just sets dangerous precedents. By adding the address to the blacklist you have given these prats exactly what they want. When it comes down to it though is that this is giving in purely because of convenience. What happens when someone tries the very same thing with www.micro$haft.com? The fact of the matter is that this link is being used correctly on the article and therefore should be allowed to be added to the article. It's a shame that the blacklist can't be versatile enough to filter the address if it's not used on that article or if it's used more than once. I still think it's a bad day when convenience wins over correct procedure.

	::Oh, and yes I totally agree that this is a thoroughly uninteresting article and doesn't warrant the time that's been spent on it... not to mention all the other faecal fallout associated with it that Hoary and I have had to deal with! --]''' 15:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	*I think it would be appropriate to remove it from the blacklist. The next time the certain disruptive user removes the link, I (and other users) will not be able to revert the edit and will have to seek admin help. This is a ridiculous waste of time. The link was probably spammed around in the first place just so that the certain disruptive user could increase the time it would take for one of us to revert the edit. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	What about a semi-protection of this article for at least 6 months? If a link is on the blacklist it doesn't mean, that the link is evil, but it's just a possibility for us to protect the wikipedia against spamming. If we let the link on the SBL but additionally semi-protect the article that solution won't waste much time. This could be a work-around until the we are possible to restrict SBL entries to certain articles. -- ] (]) 19:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Protecting the article makes no difference. If the IP fuckwits don't want the web link to appear all they have to do is spam it over the project like they did last time so that a pissed off admin like Herby once again adds it to the SBL. Once it's on the blacklist the article can't be edited without removing the link. So they get it removed by proxy so's to speak. As I said, they are gaming the system and this needs to be sorted because it's a loophole other vandals can use. Either way they win and disrupt the project in the process (albeit marginally) --]''' 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	::But there should be a link to the website on the article. It is not possible to do so whilst it is on the blacklist. I do not wish to compromise an article's quality to prevent SPAM elsewhere. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	:::I totally agree, which is why I commented above that the convenience of admins does not outweigh the fact that it's appropriate to include the link. This is the short end of a wedge that sooner or later could be jammed up a lazy admin's rear-end. --]''' 20:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	Normaly when Misplaced Pages encounters this sort of disruption from a user, blocks are enforced. I have never seen one of the IP addresses blocked. I think that if this user becomes active again, we should try to enforce a range block. ]. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
	:The problem is the insidiousness of the spamming...not only on related pages and not "many pages at once", so hard to catch by watchlisting. I concur that there appears to have been (and again is, now that protection expired) a ton of gaming and throwaway/sock/rotating account usage here, bad enough that it can't even be discerned which socks are on which side of the aisle (or posing to be). But it doesn't matter...the URL is a spam problem. Blacklisting it solves it in a way that xlinkbot can't: I don't see ''any'' legitimate use of it anywhere by anyone except on this page, but we do have evidence of users attempting to do so and vandal-trackers having an annoying time tracking them. I'm with Hoary and seth here...the link seems appropriate IMO. Too much time has already been spent on such an unimportant article...fix the vandalism, protect so it doesn't happen again, move on. ] (]) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	:On comment ''"Once it's on the blacklist the article can't be edited without removing the link."'':
	:That's not true. Since May 2008 an article is not blocked, if there's link on it which has been placed there before the link was blacklisted. That's why I said, that a combination of a sbl addition ''and'' and a semi-protection would solve the problem. -- ] (]) 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	I would support semi-protecting the article. At least six months, as the user has shown no sign of stopping. We need to remove it from the blacklist, add the URL back to the article and then re-add the URL to the blacklist and then semi-protect the article, so IPs cannot remove it. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

	{{anote}}I have removed the editprotected template, as this discussion seems to be moving away from that option.--] ] ] a '''''<font color="green">]</font>''''', but not a shaker 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

	:As there are no objections to the proposal we repeated a few times up there...
	:Could any admin reading this semi-protect ] for about 6 months? I guess my half adminship does not allow me to do that. The rest, i.e., temp unblocking I can do by myself. -- ] (]) 22:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

	::Yes I certainly could. Indeed, I've just tried to do this -- of course after readding the link. But I was told ''The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink.'' Seth, you're right, your silly half adminship doesn't permit you to do this kind of thing. If I'd been aware of your candidacy I'd have voted to make you a full admin with none of the silliness. So, ''plan A'', in the spirit of "IAR" and more importantly of "let's stop dicking around", I, rouge administrator extraordinaire, authorize you to deblacklist, edit the page, save it, sprotect it for six months, and reblacklist. If people are unhappy with that they can desysop both of us, ha ha. Alternatively, ''plan B'', I'll do the whole thing myself: I'm unfamiliar with de/reblacklisting and may screw something up, but then you're unfamiliar with protection and may screw something up there. Plan B would be less controversial than plan A, and wouldn't jeopardize your career (if career is the right word). So which is it to be, A, B, or something else? -- ] (]) 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	:::plan C (which actually was my original plan, sorry that I was not clear enough):
	:::1. (you part)
	:::2. all the rest (my part)
	:::Ok? :-) -- ] (]) 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	:::c1 done; over to you, Seth. -- ] (]) 11:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::c2 done. {{done}} -- ] (]) 13:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	It would have been easier to the original edit, which removed it from the infobox. I guess we'll have to do without the link there, as it's already been blacklisted. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	:That's no problem. If a blacklisted link is on a page once, you may place more occurences of it. So I , but hat to remove the final "/". -- ] (]) 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	::Ah, thanks. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 17:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	==www.holocaustresearchproject.org==
	The site looks legit to me. I was attempting to add a ref from it to an article ] (regarding the date when he joined ]), when I got the message that the site is blacklisted. Sounds like a strange site to blacklist, as it seems to be a legitimate research project. ] (]) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
	: It's been discussed before. Previous consensus was that it did not meet ] criteria. It was originally because of spamming from multiple accounts. <b>] ]</b> 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
	::Hmm, interesting. I found a link to this site by a fairly random google search when looking for some info for the ]. Superficially it looked quite all right to me. But if there is history of actual spamming from this site, that is a different matter. I would have to look at it more closely. ] (]) 21:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
	* Past spamming and copyright problems indicate extreme caution. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

	==lenr-canr.org==
	{{report top}}

	This site is a library of articles on the topic of ], which is highly controversial. Some articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, or that are written by a notable expert, and which may, under some circumstances, be usable as sources for Misplaced Pages, can be found here; the site claims that permission was obtained, and there may be no other available copies on the web. Administrator ] appears to have been involved in disputes over the cold fusion articles; in any case, he removed some links from the article on ], breaking citations, without discussion, and, at the same time, blacklisted the library site. His "proposed" listing -- he had already listed it -- explained his rationale, but didn't show evidence of spamming, the single diff appears to be a legitimate mention of the site by the librarian, who identifies himself, on a Talk page, which is exactly where a COI editor should make suggestions. This appears to be an administrator making a content decision and enforcing it with his tools; it was impossible to undo his edits to the article because of the listing. He cites ], but that arbitration didn't establish that lenr-canr was proper to blacklist. I've requested that he remove the listing, but he has refused. Please remove the listing. --] (]) 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
	* This is not a "library" it is a fringe advocacy site. Problems which led to blacklisting include:
	:# Spamming by the site owner - he calls himself a "librarian" but is actually the webmaster of the site. He is banned for multiple block evasion. Some of his contributions:
	:#: {{userlinks\|JedRothwell}}
	:#: {{userlinks\|64.247.224.24}}
	:#: {{userlinks\|208.65.88.243}}
	:#: See also
	:# Promotion of the site by the site owner in evasion of multiple blocks.
	:# Copyright violations (which abd appears to acknowledge in the request above; those peer-reviewed papers are not copyright of lenr-car, the ones which do not violate copyright come from fringe journals, the ones from journals which are actually usable violate copyright, and in any case we sould cite the source journal not some fringe website which hosts copies of the articles with, in at least one documented case, editorial comment to skew the presentation).
	:# Misrepresentation of sources (e.g. a heavily editorialsied summary of a USDoE review linked from lenr-canr instead of the report itself being linked from .gov).
	:# Fringe advocacy - as a "library" it fails badly, since it includes primarily sources which are against the mainstream (and where the mainstream ''is'' represented, editorial comment and apologia may be added).
	: Abd apparently wants ''one'' link on ''one'' article. That might justify a whitelisting of that ''one'' link if it weren't for the fact that it is not a ], and the article subject in question is a ] who incidentally has over 14,000 hits on Google Scholar, which rather indicates that better sources are probably available for any facts needing support - assuming the section in question does not fail ], which it might well do. Regardless, this domain has been abused for a long time and I have also been requested to take it to the meta blacklist, so removing it from the blacklist on the basis of wanting to restore a single link to a single article seems foolish given the long-term disruption the site owner has caused. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

	:::Sure, whitelisting individual citations is a possible solution, but it's not what I "want" right now. I want the blacklisting removed until and unless it is independently reviewed, with proper consideration and evidence. I consider that JzG, as an involved editor, improperly used his administrative tools to add the site. He should not do both: vigorously argue for blacklisting, as he does above, and then be the judge, jury, and executioner. I could take the time to dismantle what he's written above; on the face of it, it's inadequate. The request is made for removal here, because the addition was improper. I'd rather not waste time right now arguing against each point JzG has made, but ''it could be done.'' It should be moot. He shouldn't have added the site, period, and, as Petri Krohn notes below, I wish he would just remove it. How much harm would it do? I can say this, it could do some harm if it stays on the blacklist, it has already done harm. --] (]) 04:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	:::: What, so you could address the policy reasons for blacklisting a site which was abused but you prefer to focus on the person instead, even though I posted it for review at the time? Riiiight. Apart from the single link on the Fleischmann article, which others do you intend to restore? The copy of the DoE review which turned out to be heavily editorialised? The ones where there is no evidence of copyright release? The ones added by Pcarbonn, who is now banned from this topic? The ones added and suggested by Jed Rothwell, the site owner? Or are there others which are provably good content which does not advocate a fringe POV and/or violate copyright? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	* I wish ] would just undo his actions, so we would not need to go to all these accusations... - I think this is a serious case of misusing the spam filter to enforce POV. (See my original comment here: ].) I am also worried about User:JzG's multiple roles in this issue, see my comment on his talk page: ]. -- ] (]) 01:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	* ''P.S.'' - As to the copyright issue: Copyright on scientific publications (like all works) originates from the creator, not the publisher. Authors can and generally do retain rights to distribute the papers outside the printed journal. The lenr-canr.org site states: "...more than 500 original scientific papers reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers." I see no reason to doubt that they have the right to distribute the limited set of articles. -- ] (]) 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	:: You are wrong. I have had exactly that discussion with numerous academic publishers and authors in respect of a site where I am on the editorial board. Even the creator is not usually allowed to put full text on the net, and they are certainly not allowed to "release" copies to another site - the copyright statement tells you that the material is (c) the publisher, not the authors. Here we also have at least one case where the hosted "copy" was shown to have been falsified to better reflect the bias of the site owners. There is no way we should be linking to that site, plus the main reason for blacklisting was abuse and promotion by the site owner anyway. This is not a case of "abusing the spam filter to enforce POV", it is a case of using the spam filter to control link abuse. As to POV, have you actually read the arbitration case on cold fusion? This addressed the precise issue of the abuse of Misplaced Pages to promote a POV, and it was not me who was doing it. But that is a sideshow. This site is (a) subject to spamming and promotion by its webmaster (]; (b) hosting copyright material without evidence of copyright release (]); (c) not a reliable source, having been shown in at least one case to be hosting a falsified copy better reflecting a fringe POV (]); (d) a site which is biased and advocates a fringe POV and is therefore not a neutral source for content (]). It is not an appropriate source, and Misplaced Pages was abused by its owner and his friends to promote it. Perfectly routine blacklist. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	=== Copyright issues ===
	I wrote to Jed Rothwell asking about the copyright issues.

	:{\|cellpadding=10 border=1
	\|
	>Could you elaborate on why you believe you have the right to host <br />
	>these publications.


	As stated on the first page of LENR-CANR.org, this website: ". . . <br />
	features a library of more than 500 original scientific papers <br />
	reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers."

	If I do not get permission, I do not upload the paper. I have ~1,200 <br />
	scanned images of papers plus roughly 1,000 printed copies of papers <br />
	that I cannot get permission to upload, so I have not uploaded them. <br />
	They are listed in the bibliography.

	Here is an example of document by the publisher gave me permission to <br />
	upload "selected pages." They let me decide which pages to upload:

	http://lenr-canr..org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf

	Here is an example of a paper that the publisher told me I could not <br />
	upload. They did give me permission to upload the abstract:

	http://lenr-canr..org/acrobat/SzpakSfurtherevi.pdf

	Obviously, I have a copy of this paper. If I were to go around <br />
	ignoring publishers' demands, I would upload it. I would also incur <br />
	the enmity of publishers and authors alike, and they would stop <br />
	giving me papers -- which would be a disaster for LENR-CANR.org. So I <br />
	wouldn't do that!

	- Jed
	\|}

	What further proof would be needed on his permission to host the documents on his server? -- ] (]) 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	:::Thanks, Petri. I asked admin ], who is a librarian professionally, to take a look at this. on JzG's talk that the site should not be blacklisted. --] (]) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

	* He would need to prove copyright release from the copyright owner in every single case, the owner being the publisher of the source journal. In most cases (as in: in every single case I have come across with any journal of any significance whatsoever, so likely every single paper whichmerits inclusion per ]) this is not granted for any purpose to any site. Jed Rothwell is employing a fairly typical fast-and-loose attitude to copyright - it's OK unless they tell me not to - but ] makes it pretty plain that explicit consent is required in all cases. Of course Rothwell is ''extremely'' keen that we link to his website, but his needs are not really our concern. It is, after all, a site devoted to advocating a fringe view, so effectively useless as a source of original content, and that content which is not original should be cited to the original source ideally using a DOI - abstracts are almost always available from the original publsihers, certainly if the content is reputable enough to be cited. DOIs work like ISBNs for academic papers; the dx.doi.org service redirects you to the appropriate source for the abstract. This is a ''much'' better solution than linking to a site which has been abused in the past for falsification of references. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

	:What part of this was difficult to understand?

	::''As stated on the first page of LENR-CANR.org, this website: ". . . features a library of more than 500 original scientific papers reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers."

	::If I do not get permission, I do not upload the paper.''

	:He states: "authors and publishers." He's either lying or all the material on the site, excepting possible errors, is legitimate. And our policy is clear that isolated violations don't justify excluding a site. He claims to have "explicit consent," so the case cited is irrelevant. Is there ''any'' evidence that ''any'' papers there are in violation. Yes, we can cite the papers, without using lenr-canr.org, but ''serving the readers'' indicates that linking is a convenience to them. Abstracts don't cut it. I've asked for evidence of "falsification of references," and it hasn't been provided; however, I think I know what JzG means. He means that, in his opinion, an editor inappropriately used a source. That does ''not'' impeach the source, it impeaches the editor who abused it. It was a technical error, in any case, to cite lenr-canr.org as the source; the source is the original publication, which is acceptable or not, depending. The legitimate use of lenr-canr.org is to show a legitimate copy of the paper. And, in spite of some substantial objection from editors, JzG is insisting on his right to use his tools to block this, to essentially abuse the blacklist in service of his position on content. Abuse of admin tools is a serious matter, it is more serious than the issue of this one source. --] (]) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

	:fyi: I removed lenr-canr.org from this blacklist for it is blacklisted at meta now. So from now on this thread should be treated as a whitelist request. Actually that makes just a technical but not a practical difference. -- ] (]) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	::As seth reported its now a meta issue. Closing this as {{Notdone}}{{Deferwhite}} --] (]) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	{{report bottom}}
	===note the related request below for newenergytimes.com===
	] --] (]) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	==moneyweek.com==
	Major UK financial magazine. Blacklisted . Causing obvious problems on the editor, Merryn Somerset Webb's article . Please justify addition. If removing, please enable the commented out text and reference link in the article. Thanks -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 10:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
	* {{Deferwhite}}. Agora Publishing were abusing Misplaced Pages on a fairly wholesale basis (], see also ] for a previously declined removal request). You're welcome to request whitelisting of any links you think might be necessary as sources for that article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
	**Whitelisting is useful in cases of meta blacklisting. But in this case the SBL entry is here at en-wiki and not at meta wiki. So IMHO it would be better to keep the stuff together. Some blacklist entry like <code>\bmoneyweek\.com\b(?!/some_allowed_dir/)</code> could do the job. -- ] (]) 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	::*Having seen the justification, I agree with blacklisting Agora group as a whole. The ban the group argument hits a nerve with me too - why should people who volounteer their time to edit Misplaced Pages spend significant time and effort to determine which elements of the group spam, and which do not. Agora had the same opportunity to learn and conform to Misplaced Pages rules as everyone else. They failed to do so. I say this as someone who has considerable respect for some of the Moneyweek journalists - after ~20 years of investing, and having read copious material on the subject, the number of peope who hold this respect can be counted on the fingers of both hands. Good work A. B.

	:::If it hasn't already been done, I'd suggest removing links added by proven spammers.

	::: I don't understand how the process works. Please allow -
	<!-- ::: http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/imaginary-profits-dry-up-14251.aspx
	::: http://www.moneyweek.com/file/229/merryn-somerset-webb-.html
	::: http://www.moneyweek.com/file/19277/how-anthony-bolton-finds-winners.html
	-->
	::: Oh bugger, I can't list them as they're blacklist, of course :-( - see edit text comment.

	::: Since Moneyweek is a large (the largest?) UK financial magazine, blacklisting will prevent editors less persistant than me (like many things on WP it seems complicated for experienced editors who are not normally involved in the particular aspect) from adding genuine information. You may need to review the existing URL references to Moneyweek in ~61 articles - as they may well be genuine and will prevent any further editing.
	::: -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 12:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

	::::I suggest removing the whole domain moneyweek.com from the blacklist, because it seems to be a useful domain: . Perhaps it should be added to a list of one of your bots? -- ] (]) 09:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	Extensive (and fairly recent) Spamming by Agora Publishing despite the 2 years of warnings. When there are more trusted, high-volume editors requesting the use of this domain because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages, only then should additional consideration be given to fully lifting the Blacklist. {{declined}}, '''''however''''';
	:*<nowiki>http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/imaginary-profits-dry-up-14251.aspx</nowiki>
	:*<nowiki>http://www.moneyweek.com/file/229/merryn-somerset-webb-.html</nowiki>
	:*<nowiki>http://www.moneyweek.com/file/19277/how-anthony-bolton-finds-winners.html</nowiki>
	the (above) three specificaly requested URL's by Daytona2 are speedily Whitelisted for use. {{Done}}.--] (]) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

	:Thanks, but whether someone is or is not a high volume editor should have nothing to do with it. Just because I, or other editors are not high volume contributors, does not and should not somehow make us second class editors. -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ])</span> 09:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
	::I believe you misinterperate what I ment. The statement was not directed at your edit count, but at those accounts and IP's which are ], used to spam "particular" links and which typicaly make requests for delistings with no other edits outside a particular topic. Editors requesting the use of this domain because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages are always welcome, however the quality of editor requesting them is also a factor, especialy when there has been a history of widespread abuse. cheers--] (]) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	== newenergytimes.com ==
	More an explanation request than a removal request (although the owner would probably be delighted if it were removed). The owner has contacted me with a query why his domain was blacklisted. Not really my area, so if there's a readily accessible archive please provide a link to it. Otherwise, would much appreciate an explanation of the decision for the domain owner's peace of mind. Thanks much, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	: Check the thread above about lenr-canr.org. It seems that both are related to ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	::That thread ends by referring the reader to Meta, and I was referred here from Meta by Mike Lifeguard. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	:::Have you asked ] if he knows anything about this? ] <sup>]</sup> 06:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	(outdent) Jehochman, it is very odd that 20 minutes after you express a wish to minimize contact with me, you follow me to this page where you have been active at no other open thread. Please cease interference in this query.

	The site owner has already knocked on the obvious doors--otherwise he would not have come to me. I would like a straight answer, please, from someone who knows the circumstances relevant to this domain. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	::I originally became aware of this issue, well before this present thread was started, through discussion on Jehochman's talk page of lenr-canr.org. He is aware of some of this, but I don't know that he's been following developments. He was generally neutral but seemed to assume that blacklisting wouldn't take place without some consensus among those running the list. JzG, in fact, bypassed that, he just did it himself. This matter has been discussed extensively, as to lenr-canr.org, on ], he recently archived it (when it was fresh), which is certainly his right....

	::There is no denial that there might be some issues involving usage of the site, it could be seen as -- or simply is -- an advocacy site, though I think it does publish skeptical articles. However, that's a matter for editors of the articles to determine. There are some editors who think that something is about "cold fusion" means automatically that it's fringe science, which is quite definitely not true. It's science in a field which has been considered "closed" by some kind of majority, but by no means by consensus of informed scientists, which is what would be true of a fringe field. And there is recent research that is ... stunning. Some of which exists in RS, but ... we have editors who will vigorously oppose using those sources just because it seems to "open" up the controversy. And I'm not talking about newenergytimes, I'm talking about sources we'd ordinarily consider solid.

	::Please see also discussion on this page of lenr-canr.org. There are two threads, the original "proposal" (brief) and the recent (with substantial debate). --] (]) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	: I remember this site and the issues regarding it. Here are some starting links - (especially telling) , , , (there are, of course, more). The source was rejected by an 2 uninvolved editors (shockingly, without us involved editors showing up to poison the well) on RSN ]. I have no opinion on it's remaining on the blacklist or not, or when/why it was put there, nor do I especially care, but I thought someone should note the two (er, there might have been more, but I forgot their names) problematic accounts and the RSN discussion that was with the GA review. Questions posted to me should be copied to my TALK page - I was checking for a totally unrelated site here and do not have this page watchlisted, because I'm not interested in getting reinvolved in this issue. ] (]) 17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	::Right, the site has a pro-cold fusion POV and it would be surprising if it passed ]. Yet we don't normally blacklist sites for advocating fringe science or failing RS; they might still be acceptable as external links unless actual abuse were happening. Have there been spamming/socking/copyvio or other specific problems that brought things to this extreme? The site owner is willing to accept blacklist status if it's been assigned fairly. Best regards, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	::: Thank you for the talk page notification - it will remain required as there is a 0% chance that I can watchlist this page and retain my wikicivility in the near term. I really don't know the definition of "spam" as used here. I don't believe there was overly-disruptive sockpuppeting to include links back then, and I don't believe there is a copy-vio argument. I do know that the owner of the site repeatedly added in article-space references to his site that were not-reliable and often authored/co-authored by him. I know that the site has repeatedly commented on Misplaced Pages, and has, in my involved (but uncaringly retired from Cold Fusion untill such time as lots and lots of people get banned) opinion expressed a desire to modify the Cold Fusion page to be more in line with the sites POV, which in my involved (burfcfustalalopgb) opinion is at odds with Misplaced Pages's goal to disseminate knowledge. ] (]) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	::::The site was listed by admin ] on December 18, after he removed two references from ]. He did not discuss the removals from that article, but he immediately went to the blacklist and blacklisted both lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com. He didn't name these in his edit summaries, and he didn't log them, so they were hard to find. The blacklisting was apparently discovered when an editor attempted to revert his edits. When he was challenged, he went to meta and argued there for a meta blacklisting, which was done. Nobody who understood the issues noticed the blacklist request there. There is now discussion on both this page and the meta blacklist talk page. The content arguments are not ones that we should resolve here, that's not what spam blacklists are for. No evidence was provided of anything like the level of linkspamming -- if any at all -- that would merit blacklisting as distinct from dealing with inappropriate edits individually. No editor is blocked, so that, as well, wasn't tried. The lenr-canr.org link removed by Fleischmann was placed several days before by a legitimate editor, and it seems appropriate to me. Here, for convenience, are the removals from the article by JzG: , and his edits to the blacklist: . I have discussed this with JzG on his talk page, which was joined by ], and JzG has been intransigent. I would argue that at least one of these sources, being a paper by Fleischmann himself, would be qualified as source for his bio, on the history of the cold fusion affair. It should be attributed, of course, but I think it was inserted as a general reference, not as a citation for specific text. The Fleischmann reference wasn't inserted by a COI user or spammer. It has, in fact, been restored, but without the link that allows readers to actually read the paper, since the blacklist prevents that. This paper wasn't published by lenr-canr.org, it was published in China, being proceedings of a conference, and there is no controversy over the copy being accurate, nor any reasonable controversy over copyright; lenr-canr.org webmaster Rothman has written in an email cited in discussion (here, I think it was), over the copyright issue that he is very careful to obtain permission from both authors and publishers, for all material on his site, which makes sense. He'd be shot down quickly, since lenr-canr.org is very prominent in searches. Summary: the blacklisting was an attempt to enforce a content position. The arguments for blacklisting are red herrings. --] (]) 19:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Baby steps first (am slowly getting up to speed here). So are you telling me this domain actually is blacklisted at Meta, in spite of what Mike Lifeguard said last night? Meta was the first place I checked. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::::No, ''this site,'' i.e., newenergytimes.com, isn't listed there, I just checked, the meta blacklist is at , for convenience. JzG "proposed" and blacklisted lenr-canr.org on en, i.e., here, about simultaneously, December 18. About a half-hour later, as I recall, he blacklisted newenergytimes.com. He didn't log either of these as far as I could see. He did not specifically propose newenergytimes.com, but stated that there might be a problem with it. He didn't list them in the edit summaries where he added them to the blacklist, which made it all harder to find. Then, much later, a few days ago (12 Jan as I recall), and after there was some questioning of the blacklisting, he went to meta and proposed the blacklisting there of lenr-canr.org, and the request was granted. Since lenr-canr.org was now meta blacklisted, the blackisting here was redundant and was quickly removed, but newenergytimes.com remains on the list here. Clear? Any more questions? --] (]) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

	=Troubleshooting and problems=		=Troubleshooting and problems=
	{{~~notice~~\|This section is to ~~report~~ problems with ~~the~~ ~~blacklist~~. Old entries are ]}}		{{Notice\|This section is for technical problems with existing rules. Old entries are ]}}

	=Discussion=
	{{notice\|This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are ]}}

	==Blacklist logging==
	<big><u>'''''Full Instructions for Admins'''''</u></big>

	*] → ]{{·w}} (''WP:BLACK'')
	<br>
	<big><u>'''''Quick Reference'''''</u></big>

	For Spam reports or requests originating from '''''this page''''', use template <code><nowiki>{{/request\|0#section_name}}</nowiki></code>
	*<code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>/request\|<font color="# FF0000 ">213416274</font>#<font color="#4000FF">Section_name</font>}}</code>
	*Insert the oldid <font color="# FF0000 ">213416274</font> a hash "#" and the <font color="#4000FF">Section_name</font> (''Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable''):
	* Use within the entry log .

	For Spam reports or requests originating from ] use template <code><nowiki>{{WPSPAM\|0#section_name}}</nowiki></code>
	*<code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>WPSPAM\|<font color="# FF0000 ">182725895</font>#<font color="#4000FF">Section_name</font>}}</code>
	*Insert the oldid <font color="# FF0000 ">182725895</font> a hash "#" and the <font color="#4000FF">Section_name</font> (''Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable''):
	* Use within the entry log .

	Have added a supplement, a general " how-to of sorts. --] (]) 10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	:'''''Note:''''' ''<span style="background:#fff990">if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found.</span>''
	<!-- Please do not archive this section. -->

	== 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)
	===poking COIBot===
	I notice that sometimes people who are not active on IRC need some link reports. Admins here can now add {{tlx\|LinkSummary\|domain}} to ], when COIBot picks up the edit to that page (and it should), it will put the domains into its reporting queue (high priority, which is, only behind waiting XWiki reports) and create a report on the link(s). The first report should be saved within about 5 minutes, if it takes longer than 15 minutes there is probably something wrong, and it may be useful to add the template with the link again (it reads the added part of the diffs (the right column)), or poke me or another person who is active on IRC personally. Hope this is of help. --] <sup>] ]</sup> (en: ], ]) 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
	:P.S. Please don't overuse this function, everything still needs to be saved .. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
	:It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


	==Um, help...==
	I have no idea how to make a request, nor link to my profile, but I am Soulen and can you revert the text I added to the Dragon Ball Z Tenkaichi back in, and just not the link to Youtube?


	===Backlog at ]===
	If you can, please pitch in and help whittle this down. We have editors who've been waiting several months.

	Thanks, --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I've cleared most of this. ] (]) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


	== Archiving ==
	Looks like this page could use more frequent archiving. As a non-admin I see that as a task I could help with. There don't seem to be any standards so I propose moving any section that has been completed "denied", "done" or query answered with no further discussion) for 7 days and any that has been marked as "defer to..." for 14 days. Hopefully this will make the list easier for admins to see what needs doing. Let me know if there are any objections otherwise I'll go ahead with this in a day or two. -- ] 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

	==…==
	Is there any proof this blacklist is accomplishing much of anything? Just seems to be annoying to, well, me personally, ATM. There are legitimate URIs that need to be shortened to be included in edit summaries. ¦ ] (]) 04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

	==Complaint==
	I don't know if this is the right place to discuss it. But somebody ... I don't know who or why, managed to get my website blacklisted. My website is no spam though. It's a normal informative link and was only mentioned on 3 heavily related pages. How can I get it removed from that spamlist? Somebody? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:You can discuss it here if you want, though you'll need to give us some indication of which site it is. --]] 23:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:55, 9 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 – 1268347399 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

→Snippet for logging: {{/request|1268347399#section_name}}
→Snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|1268347399#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)

Encyclopaedia Metallum

www.metal-archives.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 There is long-standing consensus since 2007, and affirmed in 2015, that Encyclopaedia Metallum/Metal Archives is unreliable as a source since it is user-generated content, similar to Misplaced Pages. It nonetheless constantly gets added as a source. I wasn't opposed to it as an external link, but at this point, I think any potential value to that (which was slim to begin with since the type of information on there should be in more reliable sources, anyway, or else on Discogs) is offset by the sheer amount of continuous misuse in articles and lists.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:24, 8 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

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Spam blacklist?

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Spam blacklist?. This is regarding blacklisting the Heritage Foundation for their plans to harvest the IP addresses of Misplaced Pages editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

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

Categories: