Misplaced Pages

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:47, 2 December 2018 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 edits →eccglen.com← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:06, 23 January 2025 edit undoBeetstra (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators172,084 edits →gcaptain.com: reply to HobitTag: CD 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect-distinguish|Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklist|Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist|Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting}} {{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}}
{{Spam-blacklist header}} {{Spam-blacklist header}}
<!-- {{adminbacklog}} --> <!-- {{adminbacklog}} -->
{{YesAutosign}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(14d) | algo = old(30d)
| archive = MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/%(monthname)s %(year)d | archive = MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/%(monthname)s %(year)d
| archiveheader = {{MonthlyArchive}} | archiveheader = {{archive}}
}} }}


=Proposed additions= =Proposed additions=
{{Spam-blacklist proposed additions}} {{Spam-blacklist proposed additions}}

<!-- new addition requests go at the bottom of this section --> <!-- new addition requests go at the bottom of this section -->


==zenodo.org== == pakapepe.com ==
* {{link summary|zenodo.org}} * {{LinkSummary|pakapepe.com}}
* {{userlinks|Nemo bis}} * {{IPSummary|103.48.161.203}}
* {{IPSummary|121.164.185.65}}
Emergency blacklisting while we work out what's going on with this site, which hosts significant numbers of scientific papers marked as copyright by major publishers (Elsevier, Nature, OUP etc) with no evidence of rights release. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{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==
:{{Added}} to ]. --<b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
{{link summary|vtforeignpolicy.com}}
:: That is supposed to be an open science data repository. Looks like it is abused. ] (]) 21:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


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)
:::It looks to me that the intention of ] is good. Also, many journals now allow authors to post their own papers, sometimes after an appropriate delay. Please get this figured out before too many links are removed, and we have to go figure out how to get them back! ] (]) 22:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


:{{rto|ToThAc}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 20:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Yes, on their own departmental websites, but the legality of this is highly questionable, since a lot of them are papers published by Elsevieer, Nature and other publishers well known to be evil about copyright. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


==sci-hubse.com==
::::::Here<ref name="Elsevier">{{cite web |title=Personal use |url=https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/copyright/personal-use |publisher=Elsevier |accessdate=6 November 2018}}</ref> is the Elsevier policy. It doesn't sound too evil to me, as long as the use is non-commercial. The APS<ref name="APS">{{cite web |title=Editorial: APS now leaves copyright with authors for derivative works |url=https://journals.aps.org/pra/edannounce/PhysRevLett.101.140001 |publisher=APS |accessdate=6 November 2018}}</ref> also has a policy, and I presume others that I didn't look up, also have one. ] (]) 23:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
{{link summary|sci-hubse.com}}


Multiple accounts have been spamming this fake ] domain: see ]. ] (]) 11:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: That is one positive the Citation Bot trims the URLS to the landing page. It makes them shorter (original intent) and it means wilipedia does not link directly to a PDF (unexpected positive). ] (]) 22:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


:{{rto|Smartse}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 20:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I do not understand why we cannot link to the originals in stead of linking to sites where the hosting of content is questionable (and that includes replacing links with appropriate direct links to originals). Even if it turns out to be fine on quite some occasions, there is no pressing need for them, and there is no reason to even consider taking the 'risk'. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


==Multiple links==
::If people have them on their personal site, or school site, then link there. I was suspecting that these were put their by the author, but actually have no idea how they got there. I just know that I keep seeing on my watchlist links going away, and wondered why. How many such links are there? Who volunteers to find other sites hosting them and change the links? ] (]) 06:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{LinkSummary|joyfulmeanings.com}}
::: Around a thousand links, a lot added by one editor who has... issues with the reality of copyright in academia. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{LinkSummary|smartapkhub.com}}
:::: Probably can get most non-violating content with github links. ] (]) 04:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{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)


:{{rto|Dan Leonard}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 20:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with even temporary blacklisting of this. Sure, there are some papers there that shouldn't be, so what? We might just as well blacklist Wikimedia Commons because it also has some content that is copyvio, ditto for Misplaced Pages itself. Volunteers/staff here and there are doing their best to remove infringing content. That should be sufficient. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 05:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


==Encyclopaedia Metallum==
== script-o-rama.com ==
* {{link summary|script-o-rama.com}} {{LinkSummary|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.--] (] &#124; ]) 14:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
: Blacklisting a domain used in 5000 articles would require a much broader consensus than this venue can produce. ] ] 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::Even though most of those usages are contrary to consensus, and fail ]?-- ] (] &#124; ]) 23:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Okay, looking at those usages, I see that there are a lot of links on image files to denote where the image came from. In light of that, I rescind my request.--] (] &#124; ]) 12:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] how many of those images are originally from them? For NFCC we should link to the original, not to where someone found them … ] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The images should be from the media (physical or digital copy) itself? I would pretty confidently say that none of those are from Encyclopaedia Metallum, unless there's some compilation they've released that has an article, which I'm unaware of. This would further make my point above, then, about how nearly all of the thousands of usages are contrary to consensus (and apparently, policy as well for many of those).-- ] (] &#124; ]) 16:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::What I mean is that ] should have been sourced from the Sepultura website (https://www.sepultura.com.br/albums ; https://static.wixstatic.com/media/b9b68e_4099fe12cd1d4a5c87b0402f2ef73757~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_600,h_600,al_c,lg_1,q_80,enc_avif,quality_auto/Image-empty-state.jpg), not via an intermediate host where it may have been affected or possibly (not here in this case) is in violation of copyrights. I just denied a whitelist request for an altered (cropped) picture without attribution on a blacklisted site, where the likely copyright holder / original could be found (though not easy). I feel that is what is meant with the word original in ‘Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material …’ in ]. For most of these images metal-archives is not hosting the original copyrighted material, it is all copies that are hosted there. And yes, it is an argument in favour of blacklisting. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Okay, thank you for the clarification.--] (] &#124; ]) 18:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


==custompackbox.com==
Personal site hosting transcripts of movie scripts (]) and links to leaked copies of scripts (ditto), >200 instances prior to my current cleanup, many of them as sources in articles. This does seem to have been added by good faith users and it also seems to be ongoing. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{link summary|custompackbox.com}}
* {{User summary|Mevrik042}}
* {{User summary|MrsOrikea}}
* {{User summary|Mrskerison}}
* {{User summary|Zafar97}}
* {{User summary|Reejajay}}
* {{IP summary|39.52.197.34}}
* {{IP summary|157.20.146.164}}
* {{IP summary|2401:BA80:A397:C47:5072:7EE8:F6A4:929A}}
Persistent spamming by multiple accounts and IPs. ] (]) 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
: Added to blacklist. ] ] 20:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


==sonixify.com==
:No objections raised so {{Added}} to ]. --<b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{link summary|sonixify.com}}
* {{User summary|Sonixify tools}}
* {{User summary|Sonixify}}
* {{IP summary|2409:40E5:B:93CA:8000::}}
* {{IP summary|2409:40E4:204A:ED50:8000::}}
* {{IP summary|2409:40E4:1307:FE05:8000::}}
Persistent spamming by multiple accounts and IPs. ] (]) 16:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{rto|Annh07}} {{Added}} to ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
==ethos.io==
* {{Link summary|ethos.io}}
* {{user summary|Fazolous}}


==travelosei.com==
Being spammed; user was warned at their talk about spamming and the GS on crypto. ] may want to indef. ] (]) 06:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{link summary|travelosei.com}}
* {{IP summary|101.0.35.33}}
* {{IP summary|103.183.31.54}}
* {{IP summary|103.183.31.102}}
* {{IP summary|103.183.31.150}}
* {{IP summary|103.223.8.54}}
* {{IP summary|114.134.27.126}}
* {{IP summary|180.188.249.6}}
* {{IP summary|180.188.249.54}}
* {{IP summary|2404:7C80:24:138:9C7:DBBB:C579:E92}}
* {{IP summary|2404:7C80:24:414:9CE9:905A:648D:4A42}}
* {{IP summary|2404:7C80:24:24F:95BF:50D5:1617:D68F}}
* {{IP summary|2404:7C80:24:68F:4CC0:1FCE:5F08:9980}}
* {{IP summary|2404:7C80:24:6F2:95E9:6C51:23AE:84C0}}
* {{IP summary|2404:7C80:24:1308:599A:8152:25BD:FABB}}
* {{IP summary|2404:7C80:24:14D6:9C70:53ED:DFDB:C89C}}
Persistent spamming by multiple IPs. ] (]) 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{rto|MER-C}} {{Added}} to ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 07:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC) :{{rto|Annh07}} {{Added}} to ]. May be on its way to global blacklist though ...--] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


==nodemaven.com==
:{{rto|MER-C}} {{Added}} to ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 07:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{link summary|nodemaven.com}}
==corrieredellenotizie.com==
*{{Link summary|corrieredellenotizie.com}} * {{IP summary|81.111.13.92}}
* {{user summary|62.211.110.242}} * {{IP summary|121.200.8.198}}
* {{user summary|95.234.119.27}} * {{IP summary|212.147.41.58}}
* {{IP summary|102.141.33.252}}
A news website likely hosted in wordpress and seem not run by company . Moreover it was spammed everywhere. ] (]) 15:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{IP summary|94.204.98.36}}
* {{IP summary|73.177.91.154}}
* {{IP summary|157.143.124.91}}
Persistent spamming by multiple IPs. ] (]) 13:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{rto|Matthew hk}} {{Added}} to ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC) :{{rto|Annh07}} {{Added}} to ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


==moviesoutnow.co== ==SouthFront.press==
] has been blacklisted in general but it does not appear that southfront.press is on the blacklist.
* {{Link summary|moviesoutnow.co}}
* {{user summary|Moviesoutnow}}


*{{linksummary|southfront.press}}
Spam account adding fake citations to their own site. <b style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>(] &#124; ])</small></b> 08:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


- ] (]) 03:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{rto|Anarchyte}} {{Defermetablack}}, cross-wiki problem. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


:{{rto|Anarchyte}} Handled on meta. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC) :{{rto|Amigao}} {{Added}} to ], not this needs some work on ], whitelists should be implemented for the official website of the subject (/about page there), and the primary source that is used. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Beetstra}} Could you also add "getcelebbio.com" to the blacklist? ] got vandalised. <b style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>(] &#124; ])</small></b> 13:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


=== getcelebbio.com === ==hortitips.com==
Long term spamming using multiple IPs over at least the last year. Often successful for long periods because most plant pages do not have active watchers. Today I found six pages with external links that had persisted for months.
* {{LinkSummary|getcelebbio.com}}
* {{IP summary|105.235.134.86}}
* {{IP summary|105.104.16.0}}
* {{IP summary|105.235.136.244}}
* {{IP summary|105.235.134.23}}
* {{IP summary|105.235.134.168}}
* {{IP summary|105.104.210.28}}
* {{IP summary|105.103.205.209}}


--] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC) ] (]) 18:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


=Proposed removals=
:{{rto|Anarchyte}} Handled on meta. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

==statnano.com==
* {{link summary|statnamo.com}}
* {{userlinks|Nano.pfpa}}
* {{userlinks|Ashkanamb1212}}
commercial market research site; spammed by at these two users at least. ] (]) 12:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

:{{rto|Jytdog}} {{Added}} to ]. --<b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

==globalbooklet.com==
* {{link summary|globalbooklet.com}}
* {{userlinks|Globalbooklet}}
spamming high profile medical articles. edit warring to do it. ] (]) 14:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

:{{rto|Jytdog}} {{Added}} to ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
==hongkongoffice.com==
* {{link summary|hongkongoffice.com}}
* {{link summary|primeoffice.com.hk}}
*{{UserSummary|Yancc0322}}
An unheard real estate agent (as a native of HK) that spam itself into articles of wikipedia. ] (]) 03:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

:{{rto|Matthew hk}} {{Added}} to ]. Waiting for reports, this nest seems bigger. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 04:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

== mobikart.com ==
;links
* {{LinkSummary|mobikart.com}}
* nethority.com (already blacklisted)
* pricekart.com (already blacklisted)

;users
* {{IP summary|114.143.138.152}}
* {{IP summary|114.143.142.137}}
* {{User summary|JeshmiDudhat}}
* {{User summary|Mobikart}}
* {{User summary|Rohanpatil15}}
* {{User summary|Ruturaj Kohok}}
* {{User summary|Ruturaj11k}}
* {{User summary|Vihaan007.p}}


Spam that is (coi?) spammed, related to pricekart.com. Unsuitable as source, nor as external link. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

:{{rto|Beetstra}} {{Added}} to ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

== codecorner.in ==
*{{Link summary|codecorner.in}}
*{{UserSummary|Sonu kum}}

Spamming by user Sonu kum, who not only changed links into spam on ], but also created spam pages on Template spaces. Obviously unsuitable to add the link here on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

== web3mantra.com ==
*{{Link summary|web3mantra.com}}

Spamming for an ad-based blog by various IPs. I would usually not report a domain after only a few spam edits, but the deceptive usage of an external tool indicates a professional spammer who knows full well what they are doing to game Misplaced Pages's anti-spam measures. The domain has no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. ] (]) 21:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

== triumph.capital ==
* {{LinkSummary|triumph.capital}}

No use for encyclopedia. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 06:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

:{{rto|Beetstra}} {{Added}} to ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 06:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

== verywellmind.com ==
* {{LinkSummary|verywellmind.com}}

Recent spammers
* {{userlinks|Dulanji Perera}}
** followed by {{userlinks|192.248.16.125}}
** followed by {{userlinks|Dulanji P}}
;others
* {{userlinks|Mservi68}}

There is also
* {{LinkSummary|verywellhealth.com}}
* {{LinkSummary|verywellfamily.com}}

that are being added to pages by students and people new to editing about health. It would be better if people didn't use them... but that is not what this list is for. ] (]) 00:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
:Back at it today. ] (]) 19:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

==eccglen.com==
* {{link summary|eccglen.com}}
* {{userlinks|Stephencdickson}}
Unreliable source spammed by user with unusual editing pattern. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

:{{Added}} to ]. --<b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

= Proposed removals =
{{Spam-blacklist proposed removals}} {{Spam-blacklist proposed removals}}


==*.mcafee.com==
<!-- New proposals go at the BOTTOM of this section -->


* {{Link summary|mcafee.com}}
== medaloffreedom.com ==
* {{LinkSummary|mcafee-labs}}
* {{Link summary|medaloffreedom.com}}
I am trying to save edits I made to ] but I cannot save them because one of the citations references a (dead) page on the old "Securing Tomorrow" blog on McAfee's website. I'm not sure what to do in this scenario but blocking URLs to dead blogs doesn't seem to be the correct course of action, either. The archive link is blocked as well. ] (]) 16:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{rto|Skarz}} I am not sure which one you mean, you tried to add 'mcafee-labs/updated-blackenergy-trojan-grows-more-powerful', not https://mcafee.com/blogs/other-blogs/mcafee-labs/updated-blackenergy-trojan-grows-more-powerful/ .. the latter seems to work fine. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 17:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Wait, there is a rule 'mcafee' on the blacklist. Why can I pass that one, and why is it there in the first place? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 17:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Precisely my question. :) Probably improper implementation of the regex filter discussed . ] (]) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Ah, now we are getting somewhere ... No, it is correct, ALL domains containing <code>mcafee</code> are blacklisted (by me), so that part is correct. At the same time I did , whitelisting <code>\bmcafee\.com\b \bthepatmcafeefoundation\.com\b \bmcafeeinstitute\.com\b \bmcafeesecure\.com\b \bmcafeesecurity\.com\b</code>, this allows https://mcafee.com, https://thepatmcafeefoundation.com, https://mcafeeinstitute.com, https://mcafeesecure.com, and https://mcafeesecurity.com. It does not allow mcafee-labs. You should be able to save your edit with the link on mcafee.com that I gave you. I hope this helps. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


==www.blog.roblox.com==
The German Misplaced Pages article on ] has an external link to the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org): https://web.archive.org/web/20060329112827/http://www.MOF.com/AndrewBerry.htm ; replace MOF with the domain in question. It appears that this domain, which is now defunct, was added to the spam blacklist on the English Misplaced Pages in ] by ], as “malicious site spam”. From what I can tell, the problem with the website that it was full of ads, possibly some of them malicious. Now that the site is defunct, it should be no longer a problem to link to the web.archive.org copies of pages on the site. So removing it from the blacklist should be fine, as it's unlikely to come back to life and start getting spammed again. (Discussed .) ] (]) 07:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{LinkSummary|blog.roblox.com}}
I'm creating a[REDACTED] 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==
:{{rto|Shirik}} {{Removed}} from ], now defunct, long time ago. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 08:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
{{Link summary|halmblogmusic.com}}
:: Who, hold on there. This is a .com site that claims to be the "official site of the Presidential Medal of Freedom", but clearly is not, it links to "our other sites" including billofrights.com, citizensmedal.com and so on - it would never have been a reliable source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
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">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:02, December 26, 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::{{rto|JzG|Shirik}}; JzG, you mean the archive, the current site is defunct? It is used on de as an external link, which here on en would, by the way, likely fail inclusion standards. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
:::: The site was never reliable so should not be included. In fact several of this nest of unofficial "official" sites were cited. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


:Added to block list here ]. Nunaklenam's first two edits in October 2024 were to change the url on the original request from halmblogmusic.com to halmblog.com . ''']''' (]) 04:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
: {{Declined}}. --] ] 20:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== astronauticsnow.com == ==gcaptain.com==
{{Link summary|gcaptain.com}} <s>Unclear why this is blacklisted.</s> There was a request more than a decade ago to unlist it that didn't get a response AFAICT. Further, we have at least one article with a recent link to it: ]. I don't know it at all, but I'm not seeing a reason to block it. It was put on the blacklist in 2010 for spamming links into our articles. I have no COI, never heard of it before today to my knowledge, and was just copying the link from the NSMV article to another one. ] (]) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{Link summary|astronauticsnow.com}}
: Blacklisting discussion at ]. , most of which are declined. No opinion on what to do here. ] ] 20:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{Linksummary|astrosauce.com}}
::So what's the next step? Are we really keeping a site blacklisted because of something folks did 14+ years ago? On the off chance the same behavior starts up again, we can blacklist again. ] (]) 04:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, can you please remove astronauticsnow.com from all blacklists. This is an educational site, maintained by a faculty member (professor at University of Southern California) and his research needs to be often cited for astronautics history, technical descriptions and research links. It would be helpful if you can let know the reasons, if any, for this domain to be blacklisted at the first place. I am unable to find any specific log entry that cites reasons for blocking this domain on English Misplaced Pages
:::Trying again. I know Misplaced Pages is run by volunteers, but its been more than a week since the original request. Does the blacklist just not get updated? Is this an unreasonable request? Something else? ] (]) 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
-- ] (]) 03:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this reqular expression is the problem that creating the false positive (blocking legit site astronauticsnow)
\bastro(?:nauticsnow|sauce)\.com\b


:{{rto|Hobit}} {{Declined}}. This was spammed, and in this case the owner of the site was here to argue that they should not be blacklisted. In any case, most spamming is by people involved with / owner of the site. That was indeed about 14 years ago. Spammers are here because it pays to have your links on Misplaced Pages. Regardless of <code>nofollow</code>, people will follow links to visit your site, and you can still say you are linked from/used on Misplaced Pages. That is an incentive to keep trying that does not stop after some time.
-- ] (]) 03:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:The site here is a blog (i.e., generally not an RS), and often regurgitating what other, reliable sites are saying (see my analysis ] for example, or ] where there were many other, better sources for the same info).
-- ] (]) 03:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:We de-list sites if there is demonstrated use, generally that means a consensus on ] (which you unlikely will find for a blog), or demonstration of widespread use, which means regular whitelisting. You say that there is 'at least one article with a recent link' (not at least, it really is only one) added by a user who broke the page, repaired by a bot (bots are blacklist exempt). (note, the only thing we have there is a blog post, no official announcements that the actual ship was delivered - which is strange if the recipient did not cheer on the arrival yet).
:If you think that specific links are of use, request whitelisting through {{deferwhite}}, if that gives us an influx of granted links you may have a case that this site is of use. Until now, 0 granted whitelist requests that are actually in use (just a few which are not even in use anymore, probably better sources were found) does not make a case that this site will be of general use. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:I found a better source for the date on the one use, so I replaced the blog there. No occurances left in mainspace (which is better for non-whitelisted blacklisted material, it can give issues for editors - bots should not be allowed to repair these in the first place). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for responding. I'm to understand that spamming in 2010 is enough to keep something on the blacklist today? That seems odd, but I don't normally work in this space. I agree it seems to be a one-man show (though an impressive one) so I get the blog thing. Still, we don't tend to blacklist things because they are blogs. Just seems odd--we rarely keep anything around because of something done 15 years ago (AfD, etc.), so I'm a bit surprised the blacklist works this way. Eh. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: {{quote|Still, we don't tend to blacklist things because they are blogs}} ... where did I say that we blacklisted this because it was a blog, because I really did not say that I/we blacklisted this because it was a blog? And indeed, we are not removing things after xxx years, first because we do run into cases of spamming that continue for such periods of time (as I explained), and why should we remove something that is not useful anyway (I mean, it is 14 years of blacklisting, but also 14 years with 2 granted and still unused whitelisting requests, I don't think that the encyclopedia suffers because of this). ] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think my point got lost. You are saying that it's not useful so we aren't removing it from the blacklist. And, if I'm understanding you, it's not useful because it's a blog. Now most blogs don't get blacklisted. And I don't see the point of keeping it blacklisted due to a problem from 14 years ago. But I don't knew the ins-and-outs of our blacklisting policy and since I've not hit it before in the years I've been here, I imagine I can live with the way we do things here not making sense to me. ] (]) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] That is what I said earlier. Spammers are not here because they just add their links, they are here because they know that having your links on Misplaced Pages pays your bills. We have cases where spamming spans years and years, COI editors coming back 10 years after to make their page and request delisting, sites that got removed and re-spammed by fresh socks. No, we do not have some magic automated threshold to say 'this is long enough', we just leave it. And I am still unclear where you want to use it, you seem to only want to have it delisted. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== forbetterscience.com ==
:{{rto|Aste520}} {{Declined}}, {{Deferwhite}} for this domain. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:{{rto|Beetstra}} This means I should file a separate request or is it deferred automatically.
-- ] (]) 03:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:{{rto|Aste520}} I am looking for reasons, please hold on. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


{{Link summary|forbetterscience.com}}
:{{rto|Aste520}} {{Removed}} from ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:{{rto|Beetstra}} Thank you so much.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>


For Better Science is the blog of ], which was added to the blacklist in 2019 at the request of ], and with plenty of discussions over the years here, the latest around 2022 I believe. I would be keen to see if there has been any change in policy since, especially since endorsement by ]. If not, would it be possible to selectively whitelist the following pages:
Just to note that this was not likely a false positive, andthat the domain seems tobe with the same registrar since 2005. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


* /2025/01/14/fake-o-meat-by-ali-khademhosseini/
:{{ping|Beetstra}} The site owner's books (and his site which hosts book details and sales links) were massively spammed in October 2007 (for example by User:{{u|Easphi}}). I am not completely against second chances of course, especially after such a long time. But one of the main purposes of this so-called "educational site" is to promote the author's publications and theories, along with souvenirs like T-shirts and coffee mugs. Large parts of the site are little more than an expert blog mixed with an online shop, although some of the ressources may be of interest and some of his books have been sporadically cited in good faith. In short: this seems to be a problematic site and should only be used in special cases with some caution. A second chance might be OK, but the initial blacklisting was a perfectly reasonable measure imo. ] (]) 09:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
* /2017/12/14/predatory-conferences-and-other-scams-of-false-swedish-professor-ashutosh-tiwari/


Thank you, ] (]) 00:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
::{{u|Aste520|Pi3146}} Please read the statement of ] (in line with my expectation that it was not a false positive). It has now been removed per ] and similar (]) but it will be monitored. I note that you created ] (now cut-paste moved to ]) and that that page is not in line with our policies and guidelines (which is still fine in draft-state). Please use this site with due care completely in line with our policies and guidelines, a re-blacklist will likely be indefinite. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


:Individual whitelisting by consensus may be appropriate, but the two you list? Not so much. The former is personal (and promotional) opinion from a primary source and fails . The latter is a personal attack on a personal blog and fails ], as well as exemplifying why we don't need links to his website. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 19:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|GermanJoe}} can you please link to previous records and users here (as this case is predating our tracking, it took me quite some time to find who added it and when, and it is not in the log). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


== TMDB ==
:*{{UserSummary|Easphi}}


{{Link summary|tmdb.org}}
:The talkpage shows a few messages from involved volunteers cleaning up this case. The merged "... sauce" regex-statement was added with in Januar 2009. The original older astronauticsnow.com statement on its own was added with on 4 October 2007. Just a quick tip: I used WikiBlame ("View history" -> "Find addition/removal") with the complete respective regex lines as search criteria to find these diffs. Prior to the found date, you'll see some of the activities from the original spammer and the blacklisting volunteer (Alison) in their contributions during this time. Hope this helps a bit. ] (]) 09:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
::{{rto|GermanJoe}} I used WikiBlame as well for this. I could not find the editor though, just that Alison indeed blacklisted this in 2007. Those were the early days of blacklisting, logs are incomplete to say the least. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


{{Link summary|themoviedb.org}}
@] @] I am trying to get educated here, so bear with me ! Prof. Gruntman has his website (AstronauicsNow) where he publishes his research, blog, videos and also promotes materials( sales). He is one of the leading authority on certain domains of astronautics (Energetic Neutral Atoms). His site acts as one of the first pages to understand a flash/current event in astronautics domain (on his point of view) before the issue gets in depth explained in mass media coverage/peer reviewed, which can be then considered "cited" ok. Are we contesting here, what citations are OK and what are not ? Regarding spamming, Is it the issue that wiki users spam his page (he complains) or his users spam wiki?
Or is it that promoting stuff on own private webpage to sell (books, so verniers) illegal? The idea of having his wikipage is that we need to know about him, and if intersted further than go to all external links or citations poining to his research, videos, books and views. I have cited the books to their amazon page (is it a problem?)


TMDB is a user-edited movie database, similar to IMDb. It was ] to the blacklist in 2008 after ] regarding edits by Travisbell. A ] by Travisbell was declined. I'd add that the says "Tweets by @travisbell", so there are some apparent ] issues surrounding this user.
I am new user, I am just trying to grasp in order to make the page conform to your policy. Please help. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


However, the site has actually gained traction as a resource. It's now the primary source of film data for ]. () I don't see any cases where we would want to link to the site within article space, but it does get used similarly to ], as a source of film posters which may not be on other sites. This came up for me in ] where we need to see the copyright notice on a poster, where IMDb doesn't have a high-resolution copy and MoviePosterDB requires account creation to view the full-resolution version. I think we'd be better served by treating the site as we would MoviePosterDB, as in keeping it out of article space but allowing its use in other areas as appropriate and monitoring for COI spam. ] (]) 00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Pi3146}} as this forum is primarily focussing on spam-related aspects, I have posted a few tips about reliable sources on your user talkpage. Of course the topics are loosely connected, but a detailed answer about reference usage would have been a bit off-topic here. Hope these tips are helpful. ] (]) 02:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


: As an additional example, TMDB is also the primary film resource for Trakt (). ]<sub>]</sub> 02:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@] @] Hello, is it possible that you can give us a list where the links of www.astronauticsnow.com are there still "spamming" on wiki (i only find one with NYT Goddard which is legit). I will clean them up if needed. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:This was discussed recently at ]. ''']''' (]) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Oh, neat! Should I notify the participants from that discussion then?
::I'm surprised how much of the thread presumes the primary use for TMDB would be as an external link in an article, especially considering another user ran into basically the same case as me. Looking at uses of the site's name on here, it seems like lots of other users are running into this issue with non-free file uploads and then having to work around it, which makes me concerned about our ability to meet ]. ] (]) 00:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{rto|Pi3146}} it could not be spammed anymore, it was blacklisted and all old inappropriate occurrences where removed. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC) :{{rto|hinnk}} {{Declined}}, {{Deferwhite}} for specific links on this domain. Regarding the non-free file uploads, tmdb/themoviedb is not the source of the original copyrighted material, it in itself hosts it nonfree. Find the original source of the material and link that, per ]. I've just recently denied a case where someone wanted to use a link on a blacklisted site to link to material, where that was a cropped, unsourced image. Use the original source of the material. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=Discussion=
{{rto|Pi3146}} Note: links, even in references, to Amazon are NOT ok, they exist to sell. ISBN is more than sufficient. Now that you've said that, I start to question your reasons for this request and wonder if you fully adhere to ]. The way you word stuff I suspect that you failed to declare things. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 04:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
{{Notice|This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are ]}}

==Discussion at ]==
And can someone please see how those nearly 500 references came to be. Did the spamming continue without directlinks and we did not notice? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 04:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
]&nbsp;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)<!-- ] -->


@] : There is very little control on how people cite stuff, this spamming can be done by retailers or just friends, students etc. Now before I started this bio page, I inherited this spamming problem...I am myself interested on how those book references came about being, it ll great if you can dig in. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{rto|Pi3146}} Can you please respond to my remarks regarding ] and whether you fail to declare things (see ])?
:There are things that we can do to control spamming - we blacklist stuff and block editors. It is however more tricky to catch than plain link spamming, but that astronauticsnow.com was blacklisted due to spamming does suggest that we have to be more restrictive for this maybe. Misplaced Pages is NOT a soapbox or a vehicle for promotion (and I have adapted your draft and started to remove some puffery and inappropriate linking there ..). Whatever your reply to this first paragraph of this reply of me, you still have to adhere to our policies and guidelines. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 06:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@] Firstly, you are assuming that I know what happened in 2007-9. I don't. I started writing this bio and now come across articles citing his books, journals (peer reviewed) and website/blog etc all over wiki. How am i supposed to declare things i dont know (10 ys ago!). Now when i look at other bio pages https://en.wikipedia.org/Arthur_W._Toga i do find linkedin as references (so i include them), you remove them (its ok)--same logic for amazon (its good you removed, now i know). The reason its sandbox is that I am myself on the learning curve. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{rto|Pi3146}} I am not assuming that, nor was I asking about 10 years ago, my question was addressed to you now (you don't have to answer, but your removed remark suggests that you are then editing in violation of our terms of use - but I may be wrong). Regarding other pages with LinkedIn profiles: see ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 08:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
:The article ] is very self-serving in references, not a good example to follow. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 08:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@] To answer your question.....when i started writing his bio, most of references i wanted to use (books, journals, papers, blogs) were readily available on his webpage, including conference talks/videos, but I found it blocked. It was moreover baffling to see the reasons ( as revealed later site spamming). Then I see he is already the most cited entity on wiki ENA's article which also used drawings (cited) from his website (but blocked). Then i come across another 500+ references of his book, which we already are well aware is sort of standard reference on rocket/space history across academia. http://www.worldcat.org/title/blazing-the-trail-the-early-history-of-spacecraft-and-rocketry/oclc/54852580. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{rto|Pi3146}} OK, but that still does not answer my concerns regarding any conflict of interest and adhereing to the Terms of use of thiswebsite. Also, you seem to speak in plurals ('we'), suggesting multiple users on this account. You state that his site has to be cited (who is telling you so)? Also you want to change Google books to a dedicated sales page. That gives the strong impression that you have a relation to the subject. If you have such a relation, you should declare that. And in any case, you should not use a shared account, and you should adhere to a neutral point of view. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@] I am myself a Space Physicist and have extensively read, and followed the author's work for years. I am assuming, no history/sociology major will or should write about a Medical Surgeon (and his work) he likes. There will be some 'soft" affiliation, either due to being in same field or interests or academia acquaintances.
Now coming to why amazon and not google, because google is simply scanned copy of the book (with/without permission), whereas amazon provides a much cleaner preview, bio about the author and also book excerpt/review. furthermore, google books itself provides links to amazon, barns and nobles etc for buying any book. Now does google promote sales, Yes, it does give start ratings and own reviews with sales links..
https://books.google.com/books?id=F0kyMbpRLYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+suitable+boy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ0NKE8YDfAhUP_1QKHaevAJMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=a%20suitable%20boy&f=false <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{rto|Pi3146}} thank you for that answer. You'd be surprised what people write about. Agreed, often there is a soft connection, but for many there is not. Anyway, still articles have to adhere to our policies and guidelines.
:Regarding Amazon vs. Google ... the cleanness of the preview, for verifyability it does not make a difference. ISBN is sufficient for people to find their prefered copy. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 12:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Its a very intersting take, that if someone writes a book, extensively cites and provides material on the book on his webpage, they will provide a link for its sales as well , whats wrong ! its the same for journals too..they give you free citation/abstract, and ask for money to access full document, its still promoting journal sales <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{rto|Pi3146}} yes, but do you know the difference between Misplaced Pages and those sites. Again, we are not writing a soapbox here, we are writing an encyclopedia. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@] well, as I understand, the point is, no matter what any wiki author writes, it should be verifiable (by readers). Now, the issue is what all things are considered cited OK here. google books is fine for you, amazon is not. I can cite a journal with just abstract available for public access (not complete article), but not someones private page (incl author's) with full article. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Whether the article is available online or not, or just accessible to few, does not make a difference. It is about the ability of verification. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 12:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

== pricekart.com ==
* {{link summary|pricekart.com}}

Hello, pricekart.com is product research and comparison website which provides users with product information. Pricekart website doesn't sell any products, it only provides information about various products to users. It compares prices available on top online stores and provides detailed specifications and reviews of products. I found that pricekart.com is blacklisted on Wiki. On searching more about it, I found that 2 accounts were posting some links from this domain and other domains too. This website is now blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. I request you to please remove it from wiki blacklist as it is an information website which helps users to make a better buying decision. The reason for request of removal is not because I want to add random links and violate Wiki laws. But, because I found few articles on Misplaced Pages with insufficient information and pricekart.com being an information and product research site, can add value to wiki pages.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)</small>

:{{rto|JeshmiDudhat }} {{Declined}}, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, Misplaced Pages is not the place to make better buying decisions. That thought is likely the exact reason it got on the blacklist in the first place. And may I ask you to read ], I have a feeling you are violating that. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

:{{rto|Beetstra}} I understand that Wiki is not a soapbox. Like I mentioned, I don't want to post any pricekart.com links in Misplaced Pages. But, since, pricekart is an information site, I feel it should not be blacklisted. I assure that no links will be added to Wiki pages from this domain with a purpose of using it as a soapbox. I Request you to please rethink on your decisions. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>

::{{rto|JeshmiDudhat}} It was (is?) actively spammed (including by you, see ], so the 'I don't want to post any pricekart.com links in Misplaced Pages' is a bit hollow), if it were established editors who were using this site, the situation would be different, but these are all ]: adding links to this site. When established editors feel that they need the information, it can be whitelisted. Until then .. {{declined}}. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

== the-antiblog.com ==
* {{Link summary|the-antiblog.com}}

Hi, The Anti Blog is a source of information for conspiracy theories. I was trying to cite this earlier, and discovered that it was blacklisted, but could not figure out the reasoning behind it. I checked the log and couldn't find it. I feel like this site can be useful because it provides unbiased views on conspiracy theories, and it seeks to inform. When I was reading the conspiracy theory page on Misplaced Pages, I discovered that much of the information was biased or not reporting information that is entirely accurate to the theories listed. I do not believe blacklisting the site is necessary because it is not spam. I would really like to use this website and the pages on it to cite pertinent information.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>

:{{rto|64.222.173.126}} {{Declined}}, {{Deferwhite}} for specific links on this domain. I will note that this is caught under a possibly/likely unrelated rule on the global blacklist (so we cannot delist here), but blogs are generally not considered proper, reliable sources, where this type of subject needs those. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 08:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

== chuyenxe.com ==
*{{Link summary|chuyenxe.com}}

Hello, can you please remove chuyenxe.com from all blacklists. chuyenxe.com is the online portal for motorcycles lovers, providing the latest information on the motocycles market in Vietnam. Various brands such as Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, BMW, Kawasaki ... Consultation repair, maintenance, shopping guide.. As an webmaster, i wrote for this issue yesterday but seem like no answer for vi.wikipedia, so now i write in english language, please reply as soon as possible. It would be helpful if you can let know the reasons, if any, for this domain to be blacklisted at the first place. I am unable to find any specific log entry that cites reasons for blocking this domain on English Misplaced Pages.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>

:{{rto|Haugao}} {{Declined}}, we cannot do anything here, this is a vi.wiki blacklist rule. It was blacklisted , maybe that is of help. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 08:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

==InfoWars.com==
{{Link summary|infowars.com}}

There is no indication that InfoWars.com spams anyone. It is a political site which is right-leaning. The only possible reason for blacklisting is biased censorship. There are articles on Misplaced Pages that refer to the contributors of this site, but their work cannot be cited to refute the vandalism to their pages. InfoWars also has an article, so blacklisting it as spam is unjustifiable. Your consideration if greatly appreciated. --] (]) 05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
: Not to mention that a discussion on whether or not Infowars is worth using as a source ], which led to local blacklisting. Even if you remove the local blacklisting, the global one will still block it, so asking here will not work unless and until you request it at meta as well. —] ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I could easily and demonstrably question the reliability of the opinion articles that claim to be news on here. Unless the definition of spam has changed, InfoWars does not. I have read the site numerous times and I have not been deluged with unwanted messages or emails. The blacklisting of this site is malicious and unwarranted because some disagree with its content and views. --] (]) 06:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
:No, the site was blacklisted globally because a bot was spamming it (note I am using the past tense verb form of the word) and was blacklisted locally as a consequence of the RfC linked above. There is no "malicious censorship" here. —] ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please weigh your response against ] and criteria set forth in ]. I believe you will find your argument is tenuous, at best. The site contains information pertinent to active article on Misplaced Pages, as well as having its own article. --] (]) 06:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

:{{rto|BobiusPrime}} {{Declined}}. A) We generally do not blacklist on unreliability UNLESS there is a strong, independent RfC showing that it is really unwanted (to the level that the few cases that warrant use can be handled by whitelisting). That is the case for infowars, the strong opinion of the community is that it should NOT be used. B) you are right, infowars is not spam. And that is true for many websites on the spam blacklist. However, what the spam blacklist is supposed to do is to stop editors from mass adding sites that are unwanted. That happened to infowars: editors were mass-adding this site (and since that happened cross-wiki, it is now globally blacklisted).
:You will need a new RfC showing community consensus for this site to be removed.
:{{ec}} this has nothing to do with censoring, and all with community consensus. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 06:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

{{rto|Beetstra}} I appreciate your fast response, although I find it disappointing. My intent was to bring neutrality to a few articles that were arguably libelous in their content. I was not justifying the view of the subject matter, but rather putting their case in their own words. The "acceptable" citations used in the articles are mostly opinion pieces, a common mistake of non-academic folks. I would like for you to measure "community consensus" and "really unwanted" in terms of free speech, as popular speech requires no protection. --] (]) 07:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
:]. Misplaced Pages is not Congress and so it (or its community ]) may place whatever restrictions on speech they want. To deny this is to essentially say you have no right to limit what people do/say within your own household, or that businesses have no right to 86 customers who're causing a scene. —] ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

{{rto|Jéské Couriano}} My apologies for deleting your comment. I believed it to be superfluous and did not relate to the point of my message directed to Beetstra. I am well aware that Misplaced Pages is a private enterprise, and therefore not subject to Constitutional or any other rights. My point was philosophical, in that "community consensus" can easily be a euphemism for censorship, which this site purports to disallow. --] (]) 07:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
: ] primarily appertains to causing offense. For example, the page ] contains images. Furthermore, we have a page about ] which describes claims made by holocaust deniers. So viewpoints worthy of note are expressed - but in the context of a balanced page. Coming back to InfoWars, the community has deemed InfoWars as an unreliable source. That's not censorship - we've just decided that we don't trust the claims made by a website. If those claims were reproduced in ], then they would find a place in articles. It's not the claim itself that's censored, it's just not considered worthy of article space if its exclusively from InfoWars. ]&nbsp;] 07:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

{{rto|Bellezzasolo}} There is a Misplaced Pages article on ]. It may be worthy of review, since there may be insufficient balance to the page. A reader may not get a factual context due to repeated subjective wording. --] (]) 08:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{rto|BobiusPrime}} that is not something that we have to discuss here, but on the article talkpage. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


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

=Logging / COIBot Instructions=
<!-- Please do not archive this section. -->
{{/LoggingCOIBot}}
<!-- Please do not post in this section. -->

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


== tradingeconomic.com ==

* {{LinkSummary|tradingeconomic.com}}
*Criteria: I wanted to use a site (tradingeconomic.com) but was told that it was blacklisted. the site was the only one that seemed to have relevant data using a quick www search. It seemed legit. When i went to the blacklist, there was no reason given for barring this site. how do I find out why it was barred and whether I should ask for a removal or exception? (I am not an expert in the area and have no particular knowledge of the URL, but I do know that the data (on the average wage in Kazakhstan) I wanted to use is in-line with what I have heard elsewhere.) ] (]) 07:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
**Blacklisted by {{u|Hu12}} and the post from the archive is .<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

***Thank you for pointing me to the source. now, can you tell me what the criteria were? I don't know what all those things listed are. What is the English explaining the reason for blacklisting? is it the curt 10-year-old sentence done a ways about a self-serving ip? ] (]) 04:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

:{{rto|Kdammers}} those IPs had a conflict of interest with the subject, and were spamming the link. I guess your best way forward is to ask for whitelisting of the specific link - though it is 10 years ago that it is blacklisted, it is also 10 years that no-one needed it so badly that whitelisting was requested, which suggests that maybe the assessment of Hu12 was correct. {{deferwhite}}. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 06:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

== Allow (only) web.archive.org links to medaloffreedom.com?==
* {{Link summary|medaloffreedom.com}}
* The German Misplaced Pages article on ] has an external link to the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org): https://web.archive.org/web/20060329112827/http://www.MOF.com/AndrewBerry.htm ; replace MOF with the domain in question. It appears that this domain, which is now defunct, was added to the spam blacklist on the English Misplaced Pages in ] by ], as “malicious site spam”. From what I can tell, the problem with the website that it was full of ads, possibly some of them malicious. Now that the site is defunct, it should be no longer a problem to link to the web.archive.org copies of pages on the site. Is it possible to allow this? Asking here in "Discussion" instead of "Proposed removals", because IMO the ideal solution would be to somehow allow only https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.MOF.com/* while continuing to disallow the domain itself (though removing it from the blacklist should also be fine, as it's unlikely to come back and start getting spammed again). ] (]) 05:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
:{{rto|Shreevatsa}} both options are possible, the former at the whitelist ({{deferwhite}}), the latter here as a removal request (for which you IMHO have a good case, please request it there so we can use a scripted removal). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 07:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
:: OK, will request above as a removal request. Thanks ] (]) 07:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

== COIBot and the spam blacklist log ==
COIBot is currently, in the 'free time' of the report saving module, backparsing the spam blacklist log, one wiki at a time. It turns out that one wiki is a humongous chunk of data, and that the bot spends quite some time before starting to parse reports again. Please be patient while this operation runs. The data is stored with the regular link additions, and the bots will then accessit in the same way as usual.

That likely results in certain parts of COIBot's reporting functions (on wiki and on IRC) to show strange results as some code may not understand how things are stored. I will resolve that later. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 17:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:06, 23 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.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is a page in the MediaWiki namespace, which only administrators may edit. To request a change to it, please follow the directions at Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist.
    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Misplaced Pages only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 1271246066 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    Archives
    This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Proposed additions

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


    pakapepe.com

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

    plus 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)

    @ToThAc: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 20:57, 12 January 2025 (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)

    @Smartse: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Multiple links

    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)

    @Dan Leonard: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Encyclopaedia Metallum

    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)

    Blacklisting a domain used in 5000 articles would require a much broader consensus than this venue can produce. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Even though most of those usages are contrary to consensus, and fail WP:USERG?-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay, looking at those usages, I see that there are a lot of links on image files to denote where the image came from. In light of that, I rescind my request.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @3family6 how many of those images are originally from them? For NFCC we should link to the original, not to where someone found them … Dirk Beetstra 16:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The images should be from the media (physical or digital copy) itself? I would pretty confidently say that none of those are from Encyclopaedia Metallum, unless there's some compilation they've released that has an article, which I'm unaware of. This would further make my point above, then, about how nearly all of the thousands of usages are contrary to consensus (and apparently, policy as well for many of those).-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    What I mean is that File:Sepultura - Dante XXI.jpg should have been sourced from the Sepultura website (https://www.sepultura.com.br/albums  ; https://static.wixstatic.com/media/b9b68e_4099fe12cd1d4a5c87b0402f2ef73757~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_600,h_600,al_c,lg_1,q_80,enc_avif,quality_auto/Image-empty-state.jpg), not via an intermediate host where it may have been affected or possibly (not here in this case) is in violation of copyrights. I just denied a whitelist request for an altered (cropped) picture without attribution on a blacklisted site, where the likely copyright holder / original could be found (though not easy). I feel that is what is meant with the word original in ‘Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material …’ in WP:NFCC. For most of these images metal-archives is not hosting the original copyrighted material, it is all copies that are hosted there. And yes, it is an argument in favour of blacklisting. Dirk Beetstra 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay, thank you for the clarification.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    custompackbox.com

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts and IPs. Annh07 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Added to blacklist. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    sonixify.com

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts and IPs. Annh07 (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Annh07: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    travelosei.com

    Persistent spamming by multiple IPs. Annh07 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Annh07: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. May be on its way to global blacklist though ...--Dirk Beetstra 19:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    nodemaven.com

    Persistent spamming by multiple IPs. Annh07 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Annh07: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    SouthFront.press

    WP:SOUTHFRONT has been blacklisted in general but it does not appear that southfront.press is on the blacklist.

    - Amigao (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Amigao: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, not this needs some work on SouthFront, whitelists should be implemented for the official website of the subject (/about page there), and the primary source that is used. --Dirk Beetstra 05:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    hortitips.com

    Long term spamming using multiple IPs over at least the last year. Often successful for long periods because most plant pages do not have active watchers. Today I found six pages with external links that had persisted for months.

    🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:39, 22 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:
    • 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.

    *.mcafee.com

    I am trying to save edits I made to BlackEnergy but I cannot save them because one of the citations references a (dead) page on the old "Securing Tomorrow" blog on McAfee's website. I'm not sure what to do in this scenario but blocking URLs to dead blogs doesn't seem to be the correct course of action, either. The archive link is blocked as well. skarz (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Skarz: I am not sure which one you mean, you tried to add 'mcafee-labs/updated-blackenergy-trojan-grows-more-powerful', not https://mcafee.com/blogs/other-blogs/mcafee-labs/updated-blackenergy-trojan-grows-more-powerful/ .. the latter seems to work fine. --Dirk Beetstra 17:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wait, there is a rule 'mcafee' on the blacklist. Why can I pass that one, and why is it there in the first place? --Dirk Beetstra 17:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Precisely my question. :) Probably improper implementation of the regex filter discussed here. skarz (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Skarz Ah, now we are getting somewhere ... No, it is correct, ALL domains containing mcafee are blacklisted (by me), so that part is correct. At the same time I did this, whitelisting \bmcafee\.com\b \bthepatmcafeefoundation\.com\b \bmcafeeinstitute\.com\b \bmcafeesecure\.com\b \bmcafeesecurity\.com\b, this allows https://mcafee.com, https://thepatmcafeefoundation.com, https://mcafeeinstitute.com, https://mcafeesecure.com, and https://mcafeesecurity.com. It does not allow mcafee-labs. You should be able to save your edit with the link on mcafee.com that I gave you. I hope this helps. Dirk Beetstra 19:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    www.blog.roblox.com

    I'm creating a[REDACTED] 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)
    no Declined. --* Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    gcaptain.com

    gcaptain.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 Unclear why this is blacklisted. There was a request more than a decade ago to unlist it that didn't get a response AFAICT. Further, we have at least one article with a recent link to it: National Security Multi-Mission Vessel. I don't know it at all, but I'm not seeing a reason to block it. It was put on the blacklist in 2010 for spamming links into our articles. I have no COI, never heard of it before today to my knowledge, and was just copying the link from the NSMV article to another one. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Blacklisting discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August_2010#gcaptain.com. Many prior whitelisting or deblacklisting discussions, most of which are declined. No opinion on what to do here. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    So what's the next step? Are we really keeping a site blacklisted because of something folks did 14+ years ago? On the off chance the same behavior starts up again, we can blacklist again. Hobit (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Trying again. I know Misplaced Pages is run by volunteers, but its been more than a week since the original request. Does the blacklist just not get updated? Is this an unreasonable request? Something else? Hobit (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Hobit: no Declined. This was spammed, and in this case the owner of the site was here to argue that they should not be blacklisted. In any case, most spamming is by people involved with / owner of the site. That was indeed about 14 years ago. Spammers are here because it pays to have your links on Misplaced Pages. Regardless of nofollow, people will follow links to visit your site, and you can still say you are linked from/used on Misplaced Pages. That is an incentive to keep trying that does not stop after some time.
    The site here is a blog (i.e., generally not an RS), and often regurgitating what other, reliable sites are saying (see my analysis here for example, or here where there were many other, better sources for the same info).
    We de-list sites if there is demonstrated use, generally that means a consensus on WP:RS/N (which you unlikely will find for a blog), or demonstration of widespread use, which means regular whitelisting. You say that there is 'at least one article with a recent link' (not at least, it really is only one) added by a user who broke the page, repaired by a bot (bots are blacklist exempt). (note, the only thing we have there is a blog post, no official announcements that the actual ship was delivered - which is strange if the recipient did not cheer on the arrival yet).
    If you think that specific links are of use, request whitelisting through  Defer to Whitelist, if that gives us an influx of granted links you may have a case that this site is of use. Until now, 0 granted whitelist requests that are actually in use (just a few which are not even in use anymore, probably better sources were found) does not make a case that this site will be of general use. --Dirk Beetstra 14:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I found a better source for the date on the one use, so I replaced the blog there. No occurances left in mainspace (which is better for non-whitelisted blacklisted material, it can give issues for editors - bots should not be allowed to repair these in the first place). --Dirk Beetstra 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for responding. I'm to understand that spamming in 2010 is enough to keep something on the blacklist today? That seems odd, but I don't normally work in this space. I agree it seems to be a one-man show (though an impressive one) so I get the blog thing. Still, we don't tend to blacklist things because they are blogs. Just seems odd--we rarely keep anything around because of something done 15 years ago (AfD, etc.), so I'm a bit surprised the blacklist works this way. Eh. Thanks again. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Hobit:

    Still, we don't tend to blacklist things because they are blogs

    ... where did I say that we blacklisted this because it was a blog, because I really did not say that I/we blacklisted this because it was a blog? And indeed, we are not removing things after xxx years, first because we do run into cases of spamming that continue for such periods of time (as I explained), and why should we remove something that is not useful anyway (I mean, it is 14 years of blacklisting, but also 14 years with 2 granted and still unused whitelisting requests, I don't think that the encyclopedia suffers because of this). Dirk Beetstra 19:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think my point got lost. You are saying that it's not useful so we aren't removing it from the blacklist. And, if I'm understanding you, it's not useful because it's a blog. Now most blogs don't get blacklisted. And I don't see the point of keeping it blacklisted due to a problem from 14 years ago. But I don't knew the ins-and-outs of our blacklisting policy and since I've not hit it before in the years I've been here, I imagine I can live with the way we do things here not making sense to me. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Hobit That is what I said earlier. Spammers are not here because they just add their links, they are here because they know that having your links on Misplaced Pages pays your bills. We have cases where spamming spans years and years, COI editors coming back 10 years after to make their page and request delisting, sites that got removed and re-spammed by fresh socks. No, we do not have some magic automated threshold to say 'this is long enough', we just leave it. And I am still unclear where you want to use it, you seem to only want to have it delisted. Dirk Beetstra 05:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    forbetterscience.com

    forbetterscience.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

    For Better Science is the blog of Leonid Schneider, which was added to the blacklist in 2019 at the request of User:JzG, and with plenty of discussions over the years here, the latest around 2022 I believe. I would be keen to see if there has been any change in policy since, especially since endorsement by Elizabeth Bik. If not, would it be possible to selectively whitelist the following pages:

    • /2025/01/14/fake-o-meat-by-ali-khademhosseini/
    • /2017/12/14/predatory-conferences-and-other-scams-of-false-swedish-professor-ashutosh-tiwari/

    Thank you, 81.109.86.251 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC).

    Individual whitelisting by consensus may be appropriate, but the two you list? Not so much. The former is personal (and promotional) opinion from a primary source and fails . The latter is a personal attack on a personal blog and fails WP:BLP, as well as exemplifying why we don't need links to his website. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    TMDB

    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

    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 is a user-edited movie database, similar to IMDb. It was added to the blacklist in 2008 after this request regarding edits by Travisbell. A 2016 removal proposal by Travisbell was declined. I'd add that the X account for TMDB says "Tweets by @travisbell", so there are some apparent COI issues surrounding this user.

    However, the site has actually gained traction as a resource. It's now the primary source of film data for Letterboxd. () I don't see any cases where we would want to link to the site within article space, but it does get used similarly to movieposterdb.com, as a source of film posters which may not be on other sites. This came up for me in an FFD where we need to see the copyright notice on a poster, where IMDb doesn't have a high-resolution copy and MoviePosterDB requires account creation to view the full-resolution version. I think we'd be better served by treating the site as we would MoviePosterDB, as in keeping it out of article space but allowing its use in other areas as appropriate and monitoring for COI spam. hinnk (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    As an additional example, TMDB is also the primary film resource for Trakt (). jac roe 02:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    This was discussed recently at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2024. Ravensfire (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh, neat! Should I notify the participants from that discussion then?
    I'm surprised how much of the thread presumes the primary use for TMDB would be as an external link in an article, especially considering another user ran into basically the same case as me. Looking at uses of the site's name on here, it seems like lots of other users are running into this issue with non-free file uploads and then having to work around it, which makes me concerned about our ability to meet WP:IUP#RI. hinnk (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Hinnk: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. Regarding the non-free file uploads, tmdb/themoviedb is not the source of the original copyrighted material, it in itself hosts it nonfree. Find the original source of the material and link that, per WP:NFCC. I've just recently denied a case where someone wanted to use a link on a blacklisted site to link to material, where that was a cropped, unsourced image. Use the original source of the material. --Dirk Beetstra 05:40, 18 January 2025 (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:
    MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions Add topic