Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:SBL)
"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. For a description of the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. For instructions on administering the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    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 Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia: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 – 1265715502 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    [edit]


    stefitalman.info

    [edit]

    --Wotheina (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Same as #crocsjibbitz.com, both domains added to the global blacklist. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wotheina: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    xtremediesel.com

    [edit]

    Refspamming to an online truck parts & accessories retailer. ([1], [2], [3], [4]) The DieselTech2 account was created less than two hours after the Diesel60 account was warned for spamming. --Sable232 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting here that DieselTech2 tried to blank this report: [5] - MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added new information to the above pages and links to legitimate pages and it was removed for no reason? Sorry I won't try and contribute any information to improve the quality of the pages. DieselTech2 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you didn't. You linked to a web page that advertises parts/accessories and tried to pass it off as a legitimate reference. That is spamming, period. --Sable232 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression I had to cite a source or list a reference. You could have left the information and removed the links if they were not acceptable. There is plenty of information about those specific engines at the bottom of the page.
    Also there are other links on that same page that go to online retailers, so it seemed like it would be an acceptable reference. DieselTech2 (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do have to cite a source or list a reference - one that meets Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. That is not an opportunity to repetitively add links to your own site. If you have noticed other problem links, they should be replaced with reliable sources - not used as justification to make the problem worse by adding more spam. MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some information and links around a month ago. I was checking out another page the other day and simply noticed it did not list the transmissions that were offered with that engine, so I added the transmission types that were offered and a link for reference. I thought that information might be helpful to some readers.
    Can you tell me why these are not permitted as links/references? Just so I know for future reference?
    xtremediesel.com/blog/2021/09/01/what-is-a-cp4-pump-and-why-does-it-fail/
    xtremediesel.com/blog/2021/12/22/2003-2007-ford-6-0l-powerstroke-buyers-guide/ DieselTech2 (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blogs and other self-published sources like yours don't meet WP:RS guidelines. Your site is already blacklisted, so for future reference you'll need to find somewhere else to promote it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't looking to promote anything. There is a lot of incorrect or missing information and I thought I would help improve the quality of the content on here, but it is no longer worth the effort. On the Duramax page it says the cylinder heads were made from "an experimental composite design cylinder head". I changed it to Aluminum and added the first source that came up on google. I didn't know blogs were prohibited since there are others listed on here. DieselTech2 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added Three strikes, yer out. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    messagegirls.pp.ua

    [edit]

    Links to this domain were added by various accounts including IPs and registered accounts here and on sister sites.[6] Frost 13:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    frnctry.pp.ua is also frequently added to articles by this spam farm. Frost 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    radarchronicle.com and theblazetimes.in

    [edit]

    These are both "news" website being pushed by a spammer, probably also related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Btw_Santhosh. Ravensfire (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting some cross-wiki spam [7] and [8], 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)[reply]
    Definitely. Don’t hesitate to report if you want to. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on that now. Request created. Ravensfire (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ipcb.com

    [edit]


    Goldbroker

    [edit]
    Link

    Long term spamming, see [9]. Recent activity [10]. Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 05:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    advocatenarendersingh

    [edit]
    Link

    Long term spamming, see [11]. Recent activity [12]. Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1 plus Added. I also ran a CU and blocked all the recent accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Commercial spam. These domain has already blacklisted on Chinese Wikipedia. --SCP-2000 12:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: plus Added to the global blacklist. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    msnmag.co.uk

    [edit]

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

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

    usdolly.rocks

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. I've blocked the user in en. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Indonesian lottery

    [edit]

    These two new accounts are clearly the same person, creating sandboxes (1) (2) in identical styles. Both lead to different sites, but clearly by the same original author/company. There's nothing on them that would be useful for us to link to.

    But… since these are two different sites, they don't strictly come under our rules for blacklisting – ie, multiple links to the same site. So I could be in entirely the wrong place, and if so, please suggest a board that might be interested in this (if there is one!). It's probably not worth an SSI since they're just sandboxes and not actually mainspace spamming. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be confined to these two accounts, which are both now blocked. I'll leave this open for a bit to see if they continue. I'm hesitant to blacklist links for one or two instances of spamming (but three strikes and yer out!). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same types of links to identical-looking sites from another new user. I suspect there must be dozens more – all to different URLs – being slipped in all the time. Not sure what we can do about it, mind. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    pakapepe.com

    [edit]

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

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    vtforeignpolicy.com

    [edit]

    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 - Wikipedia: 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)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    [edit]

    Remove themoviedb.org/tmdb.org

    [edit]

    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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia), 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 Wikipedia itself was only 7 years old.

    Azuravian (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     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 Talk 11:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia without any legitimate reason.

    For a FOSS style system like Wikipedia, it seems antithetical to block sites essentially permanently over the actions of a single user? Azuravian (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
    I don't remember the specifics but it looks like User:Travisbell ignored multiple requests and warnings:
    After that, an editor requested the domain he was spamming be blacklisted; that's when I blacklisted it. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    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.
    Wikipedia’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. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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, Wikipedia *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)[reply]
    @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 T C 05:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    @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, Wikipedia *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 T C 04:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Not you. And there is a huge difference between adding 'en masse' and spamming. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia 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 [showed] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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 Wikipedia pays your bills, why be deterred by warnings or blocks? Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 T C 21:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe it or not there are intricacies to Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    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 T C 04:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    www.blog.roblox.com

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    www.halmblogmusic.com

    [edit]

    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 - Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia 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 [13]. Ravensfire (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    [edit]


    Archiving time

    [edit]

    A bunch of recent requests got archived Special:Diff/1239133035/1239171878 but no action was taken. In fact the log has no updates since May 2024: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log. Is this think on auto pilot? -- GreenC 04:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The bot will archive it after seven days with no comments, even if it hasn't been done (Another example). ClumsyOwlet (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing has been done since May... maybe we should increase the archive bot timer to at least 3 months. -- GreenC 00:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Increased to 90 days -- GreenC 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we are stuck with a lot of handled requests. I’m lowering again. Dirk Beetstra T C 21:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    [edit]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1265715502"