Misplaced Pages

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:30, 14 February 2009 editSteven Walling (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators49,793 edits →www.readwriteweb.com: closing discussion. If you have evidence the url should be re-added, please make a proposal.← Previous edit Revision as of 23:49, 14 February 2009 edit undoHu12 (talk | contribs)91,877 edits rmv urelated see WP:CANVASSNext edit →
Line 648: Line 648:
]] 12:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC) ]] 12:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


:Whether or not the original blacklisting was justified is ''moot,'' for a delisting request coming from or supported by autoconfirmed editors. Blacklisting may be justified originally based on one kind of evidence; preventing linkspam efficiently may require erring on the side of blacklisting. However, delisting and whitelisting requests should have a presumption in the other direction, in my opinion, and the rebuttable default should be that evidence of ''actual harm'' to the project, with a likelihood of ''continuation,'' is needed to support maintained blacklisting, not merely the ''appearance of possible harm'' that multiple addition of links represents.

:The spam blacklist community follows a general rule that multiple additions of links is spamming, with little regard for whether or not the links were appropriate in situ. This makes sense from the point of view of prevention, but less sense in terms of general editing policy. From discovering an initial situation where the blacklist was used ''without'' linkspamming, by any reasonable definition, I've been watching how the blacklist operates, and discussing it with blacklist admins (admins who regularly maintain the blacklist) and others. Because I believe that the matter deserves broader community attention, if the problems I see are not solved "internally," i.e., among the small group of maintaining administrators and myself and others, I am working on a report at ], beginning with discussion at ]. All editors are invited to assist me in preparing this report. If consensus cannot be found, then wider process would presumably be followed, as needed to find a broad consensus as to how to better manage the blacklisting, delisting, and whitelisting processes to meet both efficient prevention needs ''and'' general editorial needs. I've formed a preliminary opinion as to how an approach to this. This particular request has been closed, and further discussion should not take place here, in my opinion, this page is for requesting changes to the blacklist. However, the pages I've created are my own pages, and others are free to disagree with me, to discuss here or elsewhere at a low level, to work on their own reports, or to escalate per ]. I'm trying to avoid further disruption while at the same time addressing the issues efficiently. --] (]) 13:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
{{report bottom}} {{report bottom}}


Revision as of 23:49, 14 February 2009

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 – 270765225 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    Archives
    This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
    Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

    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.

    nonciclopedia.wikia.com

    Another uncy off-shoot which never needs to be linked anywhere and has been spammed on User talk:Hinoa. Has potential to be spammed by the sites users like what happened with uncy.--Otterathome (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

    • There are four links, all form Uncyclopedia where this and other language uncyclopedias are discussed. Actually I would think that none of them are notable, and could safely be removed from that article, but that is just my view. Right now I see no evidence of abuse. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    drakecircus.net

    moved here from my talk page. -- seth (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    Users are adding www.drakecircus.net instead of .com, so you might want to add it to the blacklist. Jolly Ω Janner 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Blacklisting will be done in a few minutes. -- seth (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Seems to be working, as one of the latest sockpuppets is resorting to redirecting pages there. Jolly Ω Janner 17:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    Yep. Revert, indef block, protect user talk page, later, rinse, repeat. OhNoitsJamie 17:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    Special:Contributions/Jeremy-parkurst-junior another. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    webs.com

    webs.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    This main home for this domain bills itself as a place to "create your own website for free". The problem is that many of the websites created are not written by authorities on the subjects. While there may be some legitimate pages on the site, the ones I have reviewed thus far are comprised of fansites, soapboxing, advertisements, and original research into various subjects.

    Unfortunately, there are over 600 uses of this domain in multiple articles on Misplaced Pages, so reviewing is going to be time consuming to determine which (if any) of the uses should be viewed as legitimate and potentially allow white-listing for any legitimate sites that may be found.

    Note: this was initially reported a few days ago at Misplaced Pages talk:WPSPAM#webs.com. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

    Comment: After searching further, it appears that webs.com was originally named freewebs.com. For both that site and for webs.com, it appears that blacklisting has been done in the past based on subdomains. Looking at this closer, I suspect that's the better way to address this: blacklisting subdomains only if they become problematic - not doing the whole webs.com domain due to several inappropriate uses of it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

    www.stonexsurveying.com

    213.156.61.155 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) The site www.stonexsurveying.com has been added repeatedly over the last few days by different IPs to Surveying and Geodesy. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

    Ive found one other IP adding these related urls;
    81.21.81.117 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    82.48.104.120 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    81.208.74.187 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Have there beem more?--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

    That's all that I can find. I didn't count the pdesigner.net additions, because it seemed to me more a notability question than a spam issue. These are the diffs I've found: Additions of links to stonexsurveying.com

    By 213.156.61.155:

    21:31, 28 January 2009

    21:35, 28 January 2009

    By 81.21.81.117:

    22:23, 26 January 2009

    Addition of links to totalstationshop.com (appears to be the same company).

    09:14, 21 November 2008

    12:05, 23 August 2007

    --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

    Found more and added them above. Appears to be a long term problem over multiple IP's (and projects), Consider Both related URLS  Done. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    There's still more out there. I'll post a list in a little while. --A. B. 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


    Domains spammed on this or other projects and likely owned by the spammer (I recommend blacklisting on meta):


    Domains spammed on this or other projects and probably owned by the spammer's clients (I recommend blacklisting on meta):


    Additional accounts:


    Cross-wiki contributions:


    Related domains registered to the spammer (I recommend blacklisting on meta):


    Related domains associated with the surveyor spam (I recommend blacklisting on meta):


    Additional web design clients (I recommend monitoring with XLinkBot):
    • official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
     Defer to XLinkBot -- now monitored by XLinkBot as well as x-wiki --A. B. 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    Possibly related domains (May or may not be clients -- I don't have time to check right now):
    --A. B. 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

    4shared.com

    Several accounts have been adding links to file sharing site 4shared.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 where songs are mentioned in articles, sometimes replacing wiki links; this appears to have started in October 2008 (although links to similar sites had been added to some of the articles before), and many, and maybe all of the accounts, appear to be the same user. The articles most frequently targeted appear to be related to Elton John, Prince and Silverchair.

    When I first noticed this I made a checkuser request , and as a result almost 200 accounts were found, and a few IP addresses were blocked. I looked again a few weeks later and found four new accounts that had re-added some of the links; the checkuser request for these, at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wallflowers98, found another two accounts. The additions of links are continuing, with more accounts, some are recently created but others are older, and were created before the first checkuser request (I have found a few more accounts created in October/November). The accounts used recently are:

    The site has several existing links to it from various namespaces, and I'm not sure if the links are valid (some, at least on talk pages, may be), but I think links to the site should be added to the spam blacklist as they are unlikely to be reliable sources and are more likely to be copyright violations, with the existing links either removed, disabled or added to the whitelist. —Snigbrook 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

     Done. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    Also added 4sh@red.com, which I've seen dozens of accounts in the sockfarm also add to articles. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    There are still a number of these links to be cleaned up from articles.
    There are also a ton of links on other projects -- should this be blacklisted on meta? --A. B. 04:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    Cleaned up a bit. Many links remains, but they're in user talk archives. I'd prefer not to remove them myself. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    I have 1201 link additions of this in the db. As this is too much for COIBot to munch (above its limits), I have dumped the contents of the db in XML form onto m:User talk:COIBot/LinkReports/4shared.com. I did not see much appropriate use when I clicked some diff-links, though there seems to be some good faith 'use' (creating a list of these sites, on fr.wikipedia IIRC). Also, it looks more that there is abuse on several wikis (Top 10 wikis where 4shared.com has been added: w:en (789), w:fa (104), w:tr (67), w:pt (62), w:es (38), w:ar (37), w:fr (29), q:en (17), w:id (15), w:it (6)), but until now I did not see many accounts who were active on more wikis (one I did find is IP 189.41.204.210, on pt and en). Maybe the logs will help with tracking this down further. --Dirk Beetstra 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Vjlenin spam

    Spam domains

    Google Adsense ID: 5121125668497952


    Related domains


    Accounts

    --A. B. 17:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Gri Limanlar spam

    Spam domains

    Google Adsense ID: 7081921451766750


    Spam account

    --A. B. 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC) --A. B. 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    Pro-Sales Solutions (telemarketing company) spam

    Spam summary
    Spam accounts


    Deleted spam page

    --A. B. 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    refinance2day.tk

    Link
    Accounts

    Added site is to a "blog" front-end, links from it redirect to mortgageloan.com, which is a commercial loan application site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


    Tonyzambino spam

    --A. B. 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

    plus Added --A. B. 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

    Dancraparotta spam

    • 21 warnings (mostly bots) followed by a block

    --A. B. 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

    plus Added --A. B. 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

    jkanji.com spam

    Domains:

    Google Adsense ID: 8162150331069387


    Accounts:

    --A. B. 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

    plus Added --A. B. 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

    parkerpens.ru

    This link has been repeated added to several articles by a couple of IPs and one user. Deli nk (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

    Same users are also active on ru, I have commanded creation of m:User:COIBot/XWiki/parkerpens.ru. --Dirk Beetstra 19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

    Proposed removals

    Use this section to request that a URL be unlisted. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section. You should show where the link can be useful and give arguments as to why it should be unlisted. Completed requests should be marked with {{Done}} or {{Notdone}} or other appropriate Indicator then archived.

    www.holocaustresearchproject.org

    The site looks legit to me. I was attempting to add a ref from it to an article Heinrich Müller (Gestapo) (regarding the date when he joined NSDAP), when I got the message that the site is blacklisted. Sounds like a strange site to blacklist, as it seems to be a legitimate research project. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    It's been discussed before. Previous consensus was that it did not meet WP:Reliable sources criteria. It was originally blacklisted at meta because of spamming from multiple accounts. OhNoitsJamie 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    Hmm, interesting. I found a link to this site by a fairly random google search when looking for some info for the Heinrich Müller (Gestapo). Superficially it looked quite all right to me. But if there is history of actual spamming from this site, that is a different matter. I would have to look at it more closely. Nsk92 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    There was no spammin from this website. The spammers were third party "Hate-Bloggers" who attempted to have this website removed by creating the appearance that the spam was actually coming from the HEART website. This was nothing more than an attempted denial of service attack that affected both wiki and the HEART website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.29.6 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    • You say. Actually we get many more assertions of joe jobs than objectively provable instances of same. Please tell me where I can find the editorial board, peer review process, fact checking and accuracy validation procedures for this site - if it can be proven to be a reliable source then individual links may be acceptable for Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    newenergytimes.com

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

    Check the thread above about lenr-canr.org. It seems that both are related to Cold fusion. Jehochman 05:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    That thread ends by referring the reader to Meta, and I was referred here from Meta by Mike Lifeguard. Durova 05:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Have you asked User:JzG if he knows anything about this? Jehochman 06:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

    The site owner has already knocked on the obvious doors--otherwise he would not have come to me. I would like a straight answer, please, from someone who knows the circumstances relevant to this domain. Durova 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    I originally became aware of this issue, well before this present thread was started, through discussion on Jehochman's talk page of lenr-canr.org. He is aware of some of this, but I don't know that he's been following developments. He was generally neutral but seemed to assume that blacklisting wouldn't take place without some consensus among those running the list. JzG, in fact, bypassed that, he just did it himself. This matter has been discussed extensively, as to lenr-canr.org, on User talk:JzG, he recently archived it (when it was fresh), which is certainly his right....
    There is no denial that there might be some issues involving usage of the site, it could be seen as -- or simply is -- an advocacy site, though I think it does publish skeptical articles. However, that's a matter for editors of the articles to determine. There are some editors who think that something is about "cold fusion" means automatically that it's fringe science, which is quite definitely not true. It's science in a field which has been considered "closed" by some kind of majority, but by no means by consensus of informed scientists, which is what would be true of a fringe field. And there is recent research that is ... stunning. Some of which exists in RS, but ... we have editors who will vigorously oppose using those sources just because it seems to "open" up the controversy. And I'm not talking about newenergytimes, I'm talking about sources we'd ordinarily consider solid.
    Please see also discussion on this page of lenr-canr.org. There are two threads, the original "proposal" (brief) and the recent (with substantial debate). --Abd (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    I remember this site and the issues regarding it. Here are some starting links - (especially telling) , , , (there are, of course, more). The source was rejected by an 2 uninvolved editors (shockingly, without us involved editors showing up to poison the well) on RSN Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#www.newenergytimes.com. I have no opinion on it's remaining on the blacklist or not, or when/why it was put there, nor do I especially care, but I thought someone should note the two (er, there might have been more, but I forgot their names) problematic accounts and the RSN discussion that was with the GA review. Questions posted to me should be copied to my TALK page - I was checking for a totally unrelated site here and do not have this page watchlisted, because I'm not interested in getting reinvolved in this issue. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see the RS noticeboard discussion in May 2008 as conclusive on anything. Some obvious questions or issues were raised, but no firm conclusion was drawn. In a field like this, there is going to be a lot of debate over what sources are usable, and for what. NET is somewhat notable, its not exactly obscure. But I'd not care to debate its usability as a source without a specific example, and the result for that example might be different than for another one. Blacklisting is a blunt instrument and the level and nature of the uses of NET links above doesn't even come close to the linkspamming that might justify it.
    That "telling link" is indeed interesting. Compared to totse.com, the prior repository, which was labeling the paper as fringe science, NET would be quite usable. But that was for a copy of a paper. TOTSE is now defunct, supposedly shut down yesterday. So ... exactly what was "telling" here? Krivit shouldn't have made that edit because of COI, to be sure, but that was, after all, in 2005! The most recent edit in the list of diffs was January, 2007. I also looked at the FA review that demoted the article in 2006, and at the GA discussion that promoted it in May 2008 (the occasion for the RSN query), as well as the delisting. I don't see any sign of linkspamming. --Abd (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    I think that the telling link was this one: . He is adding 4 links to papers hosted on his site and 1 link to a page on his site listing more papers. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    Enric, this is nuts. That diff is four years old. If that was the "telling link," why did we wait four years to blacklist? I see no warnings on the account. Krivit hasn't edited any articles since June 2005.
    Right, the site has a pro-cold fusion POV and it would be surprising if it passed WP:RS. Yet we don't normally blacklist sites for advocating fringe science or failing RS; they might still be acceptable as external links unless actual abuse were happening. Have there been spamming/socking/copyvio or other specific problems that brought things to this extreme? The site owner is willing to accept blacklist status if it's been assigned fairly. Best regards, Durova 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for the talk page notification - it will remain required as there is a 0% chance that I can watchlist this page and retain my wikicivility in the near term. I really don't know the definition of "spam" as used here. I don't believe there was overly-disruptive sockpuppeting to include links back then, and I don't believe there is a copy-vio argument. I do know that the owner of the site repeatedly added in article-space references to his site that were not-reliable and often authored/co-authored by him. I know that the site has repeatedly commented on Misplaced Pages, and has, in my involved (but uncaringly retired from Cold Fusion untill such time as lots and lots of people get banned) opinion expressed a desire to modify the Cold Fusion page to be more in line with the sites POV, which in my involved (burfcfustalalopgb) opinion is at odds with Misplaced Pages's goal to disseminate knowledge. Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    The site was listed by admin JzG on December 18, after he removed two references from Martin Fleischmann. He did not discuss the removals from that article, but he immediately went to the blacklist and blacklisted both lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com. He didn't name these in his edit summaries, and he didn't log them, so they were hard to find. The blacklisting was apparently discovered when an editor attempted to revert his edits. When he was challenged, he went to meta and argued there for a meta blacklisting, which was done. Nobody who understood the issues noticed the blacklist request there. There is now discussion on both this page and the meta blacklist talk page. The content arguments are not ones that we should resolve here, that's not what spam blacklists are for. No evidence was provided of anything like the level of linkspamming -- if any at all -- that would merit blacklisting as distinct from dealing with inappropriate edits individually. No editor is blocked, so that, as well, wasn't tried. The lenr-canr.org link removed by Fleischmann was placed several days before by a legitimate editor, and it seems appropriate to me. Here, for convenience, are the removals from the article by JzG: , and his edits to the blacklist: . I have discussed this with JzG on his talk page, which was joined by DGG, and JzG has been intransigent. I would argue that at least one of these sources, being a paper by Fleischmann himself, would be qualified as source for his bio, on the history of the cold fusion affair. It should be attributed, of course, but I think it was inserted as a general reference, not as a citation for specific text. The Fleischmann reference wasn't inserted by a COI user or spammer. It has, in fact, been restored, but without the link that allows readers to actually read the paper, since the blacklist prevents that. This paper wasn't published by lenr-canr.org, it was published in China, being proceedings of a conference, and there is no controversy over the copy being accurate, nor any reasonable controversy over copyright; lenr-canr.org webmaster Rothman has written in an email cited in discussion (here, I think it was), over the copyright issue that he is very careful to obtain permission from both authors and publishers, for all material on his site, which makes sense. He'd be shot down quickly, since lenr-canr.org is very prominent in searches. Summary: the blacklisting was an attempt to enforce a content position. The arguments for blacklisting are red herrings. --Abd (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Baby steps first (am slowly getting up to speed here). So are you telling me this domain actually is blacklisted at Meta, in spite of what Mike Lifeguard said last night? Meta was the first place I checked. Durova 22:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    No, this site, i.e., newenergytimes.com, isn't listed there, I just checked, the meta blacklist is at meta.wikimedia.org/Spam_blacklist, for convenience. JzG "proposed" and blacklisted lenr-canr.org on en, i.e., here, about simultaneously, December 18. About a half-hour later, as I recall, he blacklisted newenergytimes.com. He didn't log either of these as far as I could see. He did not specifically propose newenergytimes.com, but stated that there might be a problem with it. He didn't list them in the edit summaries where he added them to the blacklist, which made it all harder to find. Then, much later, a few days ago (12 Jan as I recall), and after there was some questioning of the blacklisting, he went to meta and proposed the blacklisting there of lenr-canr.org, and the request was granted. Since lenr-canr.org was now meta blacklisted, the blackisting here was redundant and was quickly removed, but newenergytimes.com remains on the list here. Clear? Any more questions? --Abd (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


    Hello Misplaced Pages,

    I do not know if I am allowed to post here or not. If this is the wrong place, please forgive me, delete this message and kindly provide some redirection.

    In reference to the folllowing:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bubble_fusion&action=history 21:23, 18 December 2008 JzG (Talk | contribs) (29,045 bytes) (Pruning gratuitous references to fringe website, per WP:BLP we need to be rigorous about sources.)


    It's disturbing to see one particular Misplaced Pages editor, let alone administrator, censor the work of another Web-based information service. It's hypocritical for JzG to suggest that references to our work at New Energy Times are categorically "fringe" and that whoever links to our research is doing so "gratuitously." Misplaced Pages is not Encyclopedia Britannica.

    JzG's references to New Energy Times are pejorative and constitute name calling. Misplaced Pages may have risen quickly in 9 years, but this sort of behavior will not lead to its permanence or help it sustain its dominance.

    Among others, we are reporting on U.S. government (DARPA, ORNL), academic and industry (Babcock and Wilcox) sponsored research. We are reporting on research published in peer-reviewed journals, not MAD magazine for goodness sake. If this is too "fringe" for Misplaced Pages, that is Misplaced Pages's loss.

    If our investigations are challenged for their accuracy, state such and show it. If comparable investigations are available elsewhere, provide them. Otherwise, JzG and Misplaced Pages are abusing their power and the goodwill of numerous volunteers by aggressively and recklessly deleting references to our work put there by good faith editors. Why such fratricide in the Web-space?

    The same day JzG deletes the bubble fusion references of our Web-based work from *his* Web-based work (Misplaced Pages), he blacklists our Web site without explanation, without attempting any due process.

    This is shameful and abusive. How does JzG explain himself? I don't know. He has failed to respond to my e-mail to discuss. How does the Misplaced Pages community tolerate this?

    I admit that I am largely ignorant of how Misplaced Pages works, but I do know that it has a significant level of respect among the public. The behavior of this administrator (JzG) does not enhance the image of Misplaced Pages and it does not serve the public interest.

    Steven B. Krivit Editor, New Energy Times

    StevenBKrivit (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed with Abd...I am a fish out of water here. I apologize for my previous message.
    StevenBKrivit (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    Well, it's unfortunate that Mr. Krivit wrote so much here, but he's not an experienced Misplaced Pages editor and doesn't understand the politics, which he would better stay out of, he'll just gum it up. He asks a lot of questions that won't be answered here, or possibly not anywhere, this is Misplaced Pages, for better and for worse. He has the right to defend his site against blacklisting, and this is a Talk page where Conflict of Interest editors are invited to comment. If he adds references to his site, himself, to articles, that's revertible simply on that basis, because of the COI, but he can ask the assistance of editors who don't have a conflict of interest, and Talk is the place to do that, it is not "spamming" unless it is done so often that it becomes a true nuisance. (In which case he'd be, properly, warned and, if the objectionable behavior continued, he'd be blocked.) The blacklist is properly reserved for linkspam where the burden of individual correction by editing has become too great and warning and blocking doesn't work; this should always be an action taken either with consensus or in the reasonable expectation of consensus, for efficiency. By now, that reasonable expectation isn't reasonable any more, but these things can take time.--Abd (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    Replying to the query a couple of posts above, it seems the rationale for a different site has been spelled out much more clearly than for this site. There's a separate issue about the separation between editing and admin roles, so let's take this one at a time. What exactly was the problem that brought this domain to the spam blacklist? Durova 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Um, we don't typically remove links fomr the blacklist at the request of the site owner. This was being abused (like the lenr-canr site, including advocacy from the site owner, as we see) to promote a non-neutral view of a controversial subject - i.e. fringe advocacy. It does not matter to me if we have zero links because it fails WP:RS and WP:EL or because it fails WP:RS and WP:EL and is blacklisted, the main thing is that we need to firmly end the long-term POV-pushing by the cold fusion advocates. Essentially we are being accused of free energy suppression, a conspiracy theory, when what is actually happening is that we are wrestling content back from a bunch of POV-pushers. Martinphi is banned, Pcarbonn is topic-banned, and I sincerely hope that we will end up with a more credible encyclopaedia as a result. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    Blocking and banning people who hold a minority position and advocate it is highly unlikely to improve the encyclopedia; it's more likely to make it dull and less useful. When I'm researching a topic, I want to know about the minority positions, in an NPOV but relatively complete manner, not just majority views. Cold fusion isn't actually "fringe," there is a persistent minority of scientists who think the possibility is worthy of research, that research is appropriate is actually mainstream, and there is, in my opinion, some considerable reason to suspect that such research might eventually confirm it conclusively. But we are limited in what we can include in articles by reliable source requirements, which, on a topic like this, can take a few years to catch up.
    The view that "POV-pushing" is blockworthy is a very dangerous idea. Incivility, treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, edit warring and the use of reverts instead of the negotiation of consensus, all these may be blockworthy if suggestions and warnings don't work. Martinphi was banned, not for POV-pushing, but for the reality or at least the appearance of "outing" an editor with the editor's real name. The most dangerous POV pushers are those who push majority positions, in fact; the minority POV pushers are easy to handle if they violate guidelines and policies regarding editor behavior. Now, what does this have to do with newenergytimes.com? I'll say it: JzG has a bias against cold fusion, he's concluded that it's fringe and that anyone who accepts it is fringe, ipso facto, and what such a person publishes must necessarily be biased and unusable. There was no evidence of linkspamming on behalf of newenergytimes.com; as a magazine focused on research on the topic of low energy nuclear reactions, reporting on that, not publishing original research, it's a valuable resource, whether or not individual references are appropriate. JzG's unlateral blacklisting of the site, apparently to support his own edits that removed links added legitimately by other editors and not in dispute, except by him, and only disputed by bare removal without discussion, was administrative abuse. He's been asked to revert the blacklisting on the grounds of conflict of interest, if nothing else, and he's refused. So ... we will now see if it is legitimate to make "fringe" arguments and RS arguments in blacklisting, if mission creep has overcome the restraints on the blacklists, and if an administrator can protect his own edits to an article by blacklisting. If that's happened, broader community attention will be necessary, I'm afraid. This part of this affair could end quickly, right here. --Abd (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Um, um. The request here isn't from the site owner, it was from Durova, and, obviously, I've joined in it. Are you saying, JzG, that it's appropriate to use the blacklist to enforce content decisions (such as whether or not a particular link is allowed or not?) in the absence of linkspamming? Newenergytimes may or may not be usable, that's an opinion, and seems to be based on a judgment that cold fusion or other topics covered by the article are "fringe science." That's a POV, not a fact, there is substantial evidence that it's a serious field of research, including DOE recommendations that research continue. You are not being accused of free energy suppression by Durova and myself, it's merely been pointed out that you added newenergytimes.com to the blacklist yourself, on your own, without consultation, out of process, without evidence of a level of linkspamming that couldn't be handled by ordinary means. I have no opinion on whether or not links to newenergytimes are appropriate, only an opinion that the blacklist isn't how we suppress the use of a particular site in the absence of linkspamming. As to lenr-canr.org, same story. JzG has been asserting a content position for more than a year that lenr-canr, an archive of documents published elsewhere and which claims, credibly, to have permission from authors and publishers, can't be used, and it doesn't matter to him that editorial consensus was obviously to allow it. Nobody was edit warring to maintain these links, newenergytimes.com had been linked from Martin Fleischmann for a long time as a host for the 1989 U. Utah press release about cold fusion. JzG removed it from that article, and a similarly accepted link to lenr-canr.org, and then went to the spam blacklist immediately to make his edit not revertible, added it without logging it, without listing it in the edit summary, with barely mentioning it as a possible problem in his "proposed listing," which was moot because by the time anyone read it, he'd already listed it himself. JzG has claimed that these links were "linkspam," he really should, then, block or at least warn User:LeadSongDog for linkspamming, since he is the one who added the lenr-canr.org link to the text that ended up in Martin Fleischmann. Except, of course, that LeadSongDog, who is far from affiliated with lenr-canr.org, he's a critic of lenr-canr.org and appears to support the blacklisting, merely added the link as a place to read an otherwise unobtainable on-line for free access (as far as I know) copy of a Fleischmann paper published in China. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Summary: There was no linkspamming on a scale sufficient to make blacklisting legitimate, if there was any at all. I have seen none. Two things have happened: registered editors in good standing have added links to articles, using newenergytimes.com, and these were not controversial at the time of blacklisting. They were relatively stable. Nobody was warned or blocked over this, not to mention persisting after warning or block as IP editors. No evidence of linkspamming has been presented here. Rather JzG has asserted "advocacy," which apparently refers to Talk page posts, as a problem, when, on the contrary, COI editors are not only required but encouraged to make such edits. In any case, blacklisting which restricts registered and legitimate and non-COI editors from using sources, or simply from discussing them with a link, is not the mission of the blacklist; instead, it was here used outside its mission by an administrator with clear involvement, in promotion of his "anti-fringe" POV, not in pursuit of true NPOV and balance, on the face of it, but of a "side." (I'm not denying good faith, but only failure to recognize and respect conflict of interest.) If this blacklisting is allowed to stand, the overall issue of how the blacklist is being used or abused will have to be addressed. No claim is made as a part of this comment that any particular citation of NET is appropriate, only that editorial process should decide the matter, not administrative fiat. Suggestions are appreciated. --Abd (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

    Hence, my suggestion would here be similar to lenr-carn.org, keep this blacklisted as there obviously are and have been problems with it (some xwiki abuse, not deemed to be reliable). Where there are specific documents which are suitable whitelisting is the way to go. As such, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra 11:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

    Just got around to looking at your comment in detail, Beetstra. New Energy Times is a notable on-line publication in the field, apparently the editor is supported by the foundation to do full-time investigative reporting. I've now read a fair amount of material from the site, and it is generally sound journalism on the topic, and includes criticism of cold fusion research, scams and frauds, etc. The RSN comment you cited did conclude that it wouldn't be considered a reliable source for fact, but might be usable for attributed opinion or report. That so many links would be added for NET wouldn't be surprising. It's notable, it is itself mentioned in reliable source, but ... Beetstra, this discussion shouldn't be happening here! The blacklisting was added by an involved administrator, it was totally improper, there were only a very few links at that time, there wasn't any linkspamming going on. The IP you cite, 76.126.194.190, last edit involving NET on en.wp was May 7, 2008. From other edits from this IP, it is very unlikely this IP is affiliated with NET. Pcarbonn wasn't topic banned at the time he added links to newenergytimes.com, and was very active with the articles. Anyone writing in this field would be tempted to use New Energy Times, which includes quite a bit of original investigative reporting, and the publication has been cited in reliable source. It would not be unreasonable to consider it reliable source for some usages; however, this is not a decision which should be made here. There were few links here at the time of the blacklisting, blacklisting wasn't necessary, all that blacklisting did was to make it impossible to revert JzG's edits. That's how it was discovered.... --Abd (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • What Beetstra said. Perhaps we can think again if we ever get rid of the ring of POV-pushers, but the fringe types are too much of a problem right now, they got far too embedded and lots of folks are having to work very hard to pick apart all their nonsense and move back towards policy compliance on several articles. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    vuze.com

    This was added to the blacklist on the basis of rather flimsy evidence of spamming (half the anons listed I can't find anything wrong with their edits). The blacklisting is making it difficult to expand the article of this notable subject, and I do not see a great likelihood of excessive spam coming from the domain if the blacklisting is removed. - Mark 04:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

    Until someone has a chance to look into how much copyvio material is hosted/listed there, I'm reluctant to remove it entirely. For the time being, I've made the entry for this domain more specific to the content/user pages.. It may turn out that we move this to XLinkBot in the same way that YouTube and other video sites are listed. --Versageek 05:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks, that should do the trick anyway. :) - Mark 06:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    Here are the original discussion:
    and two follow-ups:
    I suggest checking with Hu12 before removing. My own opinion is that we should not remove from the blacklist but rather whitelist individual URLs on a case-by-case basis, given possible copyright concerns. --A. B. 04:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    Unless there is a specific link to be used, I hold the same opinion as Versageek and A.B. on the lack of evidence showing copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers for the site. Additionaly there is spam abuse evidence, as origionaly reported.--Hu12 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    As far as I followed, Vuze.com is a commercial entity run by a documented company and it has very strict copyright policies but as you have blacklisted an entire domain, I can't link to them. If there are couple of pirated content there, it doesn't entitle you to block entire site and blame a company as spammer. If it is the case, the entire Youtube and Google Video should be blacklisted. Vuze is not Pirate bay and it can't be treated similarly. If you see a copyrighted content at Vuze (while movie companies themselves maintain own "channels") you should report it to Vuze. If you think Vuze Inc. spams Misplaced Pages with anonymous accounts, it is a very serious allegation and you should come up with proof regarding such action. Ilgaz (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think the company was blamed for spamming, it may very well be people who have content on the site, or uninvolved editors. I think that Hu12 and A. B. above mean that the link was spammed, not saying by who. --Dirk Beetstra 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    largedogbreedz.com

    I can't find any logs or justification for this domain. I'm new here, so I'm not suggesting it doesn't exist, I just cant find it. Could someone point me to it, or delist it? It isn't a great source, but it has useful information on Doberman Pinscher temperament. If theres a good reason for this, no worries, but I can't find it.

    Thanks--Thesoxlost (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    The relevant reports are Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2#User page spammer and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive May 1#User page spammer2. The reason why you didn't find it is the spam blacklist is composed of regular expressions and the . needs to be preceded with a \. MER-C 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    encyclopediadramatica.com

    It annoyed me greatly when I found it's spamfiltered. In spite of its sarcastic tone it's still the biggest source of knowledge on Internet phenomena and memes, and so a valid source. I see there's spamming potential in some ED pages, but this spamfilter is an overkill. Taw (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    Valid source? This wiki is not a valid source .. encyclopedia dramatica would be similar as it is also a wiki. Save to no Declined I would say. --Dirk Beetstra 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    Also see WP:SPS for why we usually don't allow open wikis as sources. -kotra (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    www.e-lab-book.com

    The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

    As a scientist, wikipedia becomes more and more of a joke to me, unfortunately people come here for information. The above site is the only up to date site with electronic lab notebook information that doesn't sell ELN software. It is reviews all ELN software and discusses free ways to implement ELNs. It seems to periodically be slammed on wikipedia by users who work for companies selling expensive ELNs. Then zealous wikipedia editors who don't know much about ELNs hop on and start acting like it's a spam site (because let's face it many wikipedia editors get some weird sense of satisfaction out of defending the world from spam - which is fine - but they end up being manipulated by people out to make a buck). Hey, it's not my site - and the guy running it may be a punk sometimes with his defense of the site's right to be linked here, but I agree with the guy and think if you go to the page looking for info on ELNs and then go to all the links - you will be very disappointed with all the sites (as they are all very old and have many broken links) except for the e-lab-book link. I read the wikipedia external links section and agree with the guy, it fits perfectly with what wikipedia is looking for. Propoganda by ELN selling companies is far to easily excepted by over zelous wikipedia editors. 169.234.115.112 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    There may be other links as well, but this one was challanged over and over, still it was insisted in adding it, using many accounts and without waiting for consensus on the talkpage. We are not a linkfarm. I suggest you contact some appropriate wikiproject, or join the discussion on the talkpage and try to achieve consensus there. If it is there deemed to be useful, one of the (established) editors from there can come here and file this request again. Until then, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    what a joke wikipedia is becoming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.115.112 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    Ip (169.234.115.112) has been blocked for vandalism, and is comming back to continue vandalism under multiple IP's registered to University of California, Irvine;
    128.200.86.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    128.200.86.107 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Even attempted to add links to google searches in order to get e-lab-book in.--Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    www.readwriteweb.com

    The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

    I am the founder and editor of ReadWriteWeb, a blog that provides Web Technology news, reviews and analysis. It began publishing on April 20, 2003 and is now one of the most widely read and respected blogs in the world. It has around 275,000 RSS and email subscribers and is one of the top 20 blogs in the world according to Technorati.

    We were contacted today by someone who tried to add a citation from ReadWriteWeb to Misplaced Pages, but got this message:

    "I tried editing a Misplaced Pages page today and my edits were rejected. My edits included a link to one of your articles. Here is the message I got:

    The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: www.readwriteweb.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted."

    We've had other reports of this type of blacklisting in the past too.

    We have no idea why ReadWriteWeb would be on the Misplaced Pages blacklist and we respectfully request that you remove it from there. We are a respectable and reputable tech news blog. RWW is a solid primary source which can act as a good citation for many Misplaced Pages entries.

    Sincerely,

    Ricmac (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus Founder/Editor, ReadWriteWeb

    Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. Unfortunatly;
    I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation. Would seem there are plenty of other alternative Reliable and Verifiable sites available in which do meet our inclusion criteria. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    I'd normally use the exact same reasoning for your decline Hu, but in this case I'd like to throw my support behind removing this from the blacklist. ReadWriteWeb is one of the top tech and Internet industry blogs (actually, it's the 17th most popular blog on the entire Internet), and could quite conceivably be used as a citation in that context. It has a defined editorial structure in its writing staff, and it is syndicated (center column) by The New York Times Technology section. I've written some tech focused articles, and I could conceivably see using the site either as a source (though not as a sole one to assert notability), or simply as a good resource to link to in external links. Considering that ReadWriteWeb is already hugely popular in its target audience, I can't think of a reason why they would try and spam us. If they don't pose a danger and they might be a resource either to cite with or link to, I think it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to remove them from the blacklist. Steven Walling (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

    ReadWriteWeb is a professional media site, you can check our About page to see that we're in the business of tech news, reviews and analysis. As I mentioned, it is one of the world's top 20 blogs according to Technorati and one of the leading sources of tech news. As far as I know, RWW is the only top 20 blog being singled out for exclusion on Misplaced Pages - every single one of the other 19 blogs are prominently featured in Misplaced Pages, in fact many have their own Misplaced Pages page! So why is RWW being singled out as a "link to be avoided" and none of the other professional blogs are?

    We're also in Google News as a trusted source of news, e.g. check out RWW's coverage of Misplaced Pages!

    I request that you re-consider.

    Ricmac (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus

    We do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site-owners' requests, however If a specific link is needed as a citation, an established editor (such as Steven Walling) can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (Reliable and Verifiable) when there are no reasonable alternatives available. Thanks for your time--Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    Hu, I'm saying that I think RWW is reliable and popular enough that it should be used in appropriate articles, and not just by established editors like me. A similar example here is TechCrunch, which would never hold up to WP:RS in say, a history article, but is used all the time to verify information about the field it covers, since it (and RWW) is a top source of trusted information in this arena. I'm personally okay with asking for a case-by-case exception, but as you can see in his first comment, there may be other people who aren't established who think that RWW is a legitimate resource for the 'pedia. I agree, and I don't see any reason for the site to be on the blacklist either. The 17th most popular blog on the Net doesn't need to spam us to get traffic. Steven Walling (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    I think this is absurd and childish. ReadWriteWeb is one of the best Web 2.0 related sites, and I personally wonder that anybody could put it on a blacklist. Otherwise, blog is a form of publishing and is not related to the quality of the content. --KGyST (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    Even if I were to agree (and Steven Walling makes a wonderfull case, IMHO), Blogs despite the quality or form of publishing, still remain a WP:SPS which has inherent problems. Because Self-published work could potentialy be acceptable to use in some circumstances, is the reason why I suggested its use be on a case-by-case basis. --Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    We seem to be getting off topic here. This isn't about whether blogs meet our definition of a reliable source (they don't), but if ReadWriteWeb should be on the spam blacklist. Considering that A) there's no conceivable reason why spamming would happen B) every other blog in Technorati's top 20 not only isn't on the blacklist, but has their own article, I don't see any logical reason for the site to stay on the blacklist. It's just not common sense. Steven Walling (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    I am a regular reader of RWW and I believe that it qualifies as a legitimate osurce for news and information. They do not merely recycle press releases but actually engage directly as journalists, talking directly to technology leaders and performing original reporting. The question of whether it is a "blog" and therefore does not merit inclusion is a red herring as the very definition of "blog" is vague (chronologically ordered website? the same could be said of the New York Times). Really a "blog" is just a content management software package that runs underneath a website but does not dictate what the site's purpose is. Granted a tech blog hosted on blogspot.com or wordpress.com (free hosts) is probably on the far side of the line dividing legitimate sources of information, but RWW is far from that and should not be lumped into that category. I dont feel that th etraffic/readership issues are salient, but as far as credibility goes, RWW enjoys the same press status as print magazines, and should be treated in teh same manner. I have no affiliation with RWW whatsoever, though I do maintain several blogs of my own and write for BeliefNet. Regards, Aziz Poonawalla / @<a href="http://www.twitter.com/azizhp">azizhp</a> 75.135.74.16 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

    --[[User:Divergence|Divergence}}

    Respectfully, I'm floored that this discussion is taking place at all in 2009. There are published tabloids and even minor newspapers with less credibility that ReadWriteWeb. This distinction between 'blogs' and 'newspapers' is worse than archaic; it fundamentally dismisses the immense disruption in the media industry. Blogs like that are more transparent and verifiable than many papers by virtue of their readership and topicality. And, frankly, there's an odd double standard at play. Mashable, TechCrunch and GigaOm all have their own entries in Misplaced Pages and cover similar beats. Moreover, at least in this editor's opinion, Marshall and Richard's credibility on certain topics has proven to be more viable than the posts on at least one of those sites. I strongly urge the Misplaced Pages community to remove this blacklisting and reconsider its policy around blogs. It made sense in 2004. In 2009, there are now major blogs at the New Yorker, the Atlantic and the New York Times. Because the form is a reverse chronologically ordered list of entries, does it suddenly become an unreliable tabloid? I think not. Vetting should be based upon more than that, particularly the expertise and proven track record of the writer. That expert vetting is important to both Britannica and Misplaced Pages going forward. I hope you all get it right here.

    -Alexander B. Howard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divergence (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support removing from blacklist Agree with other comments regarding distinction between 'blogs' and 'newspapers' is silly and mostly just a technicality here. Also, it is silly to follow policy that leads to absurd outcomes (this is both the blog vs. newspaper policy and the "we don't negotiate with site owners" policy). We are cutting off our nose to spite our face; surely common sense should prevail (and anyway, if we want to get technical, the policy states "links to normally be avoided" which, to me at least, means we should use our discretion).

    If we don't respond to requests of owners, surely the supporting comments here by Wikipedians count as separate requests? If not, must I make my request to do the same thing explicit?

    Lanma726 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


    When we supplant rules for judgment we often find inappropriate results. RWW is a trusted, respected and known entity with a global following. This is verifiable with little effort. While it can be tempting to employ 'policy' as a broad prophylactic, institutions that proceed without care for 'getting it right' may eventually discover their own credibility called into question. Oddly, Misplaced Pages - with it's user-contributor model (and alas occasional reliance upon 'unverified' inputs), might not itself qualify under some of its policies. Yes, crowd correction mechanisms work in quantity, but the proxy for that in the case of RWW is its readership and ranking.

    jdriv (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


    Support Removal Blacklist seems like incredible overkill for this one. Sure, using a blog as a source is not *usually* the right course of action for an article, it seems strange that this would be actively blacklisted. How did the blacklist originally occur? If I saw a reference in an article to ReadWriteWeb that was not fitting as a primary source, then I would remove it from that particular article. My support, however, is contingent on knowing how this block was started. Did the editors attempt to insert themselves as references in articles? Was there any sort of abuse? Hampton (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


    If I may comment on Hampton's note above. I have not found any reason why ReadWriteWeb was put on the blacklist in the first place. The Misplaced Pages history shows it was added back in June last year, with no explanation. For all I know it was added by someone with a grudge to bear against our site.

    I can tell you that in no way has my site abused Misplaced Pages. We haven't even tried to add an entry for ourselves here, whereas all the other top tech blogs appear to have their own Misplaced Pages pages.

    I hope common sense prevails. Ricmac (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus

    presume that you are also User:RichardMacManus if so can you please clarify, noting it hasnt been used in this discussion, by linking the two accounts if they are both you... Gnangarra 12:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    Yes that's my old account, created years ago and which I'd forgotten about. I'm not a regular wikipedia user, and I have no idea how to link the two accounts together. I just want to get a resolution to this issue and be on my way, thank you. Ricmac (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus

    Oppose removal atm from what I can trace through the page histories this blog site was listed originally as being like suite101.com where by the blogs are written by freelance writers and published without editorial review. The writers are then paid by the number of hits to the article which meant that the writers were spaming WP articles with links back to their article. Hu is right that blogs arent considered reliable sources but we dont list sites unless we are being spammed by links given the original reason. I think we need more information on; which article, the source being used, and the editor who wants to include rather then just a generic request from the company, oh any we also discourage the use of primary sources Gnangarra 12:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    As someone who has written for blogs before professionally, that is hogwash. No blog that reaches the top 20 of Technorati gets there by paying based on the number of hits, it's just plain ineffective. Writers are paid a flat rate per post, just like in the regular print business. But whatever their model, a blog that is this popular and influential doesn't need to spam us to get traffic, so to say there's still danger is completely ridiculous. Furthermore, as you can read in several arguments above: it doesn't need to be a source that should be used a lot to not be on the blacklist. We don't put TechCrunch on the blacklist just because they might be improperly used as a primary source, we just remove it as a source where it's inappropriately used. More importantly, a link to an influential blog post is exactly the kind of content that should go in external links, since it's relevant info that shouldn't be used as a source. There's simply no common sense reason why this is the only one of the most popular blogs on the entire Internet to be on the blacklist. Steven Walling (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    Gnangarra, that argument is ridiculous. But let me respond anyway: we do not pay our writers based on number of hits. Most are paid per article. Our lead writer is a full-time staff member, on salary. But I totally agree with Steve Walling, I don't see why how writers are paid is even relevant. Regarding "I think we need more information on; which article, the source being used, and the editor who wants to include rather then just a generic request from the company" - why do you need that? This is about the whole site having a blanket ban imposed, unfairly, on it by Misplaced Pages. I note that neither Gnangarra or Hu12 has yet responded to the fact that RWW appears to be the only top 20 blog that has this ban - it's double standards to impose this kind of ban on just 1 blog, while no other top blog has it. I'm trying to be reasonable here, but this is getting increasingly frustrating. Thank goodness there are people such as Steven who are trying to help. Ricmac (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus
    This doesnt have anything to do with how much traffic you get, or where your site is on any given list this about whether your site was being spammed into WP, looking at the contributions of your other account it was also endeavouring to spam your site into the web 2.0 article and your links were removed as such, but that was 3 years ago I presume you've changed, theres 81 links to your site on WP now. Suite101.com was listed for spamming using this method and your site was said to be using the same methods along with some other sites the discussion was there for over two weeks and nobody responded to the claim thus it was listed. When you originally posted here you said that an editor notified you while trying to use your site as a source so I asked "I think we need more information on; which article, the source being used, and the editor who wants to include rather then just a generic request from the company" that way we can assess the current situation. I had already looked at the 81 links that exist and wasnt convinced either way about how useful these links are I was looking for some substanciation to your request by asking for an example. Gnangarra 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support removal: Gnangarra's argument is not only silly, it's patently false: RRW does have extensive editorial review of all it content, and a proven track record of reliability. It's sad to note that by this standard, National Enquirer would be a citable source on bigfoot, but, say, Richard Dawkins' blog would not. The idea that paper media are good and online media are bad is nothing but an idiotic prejudice that relieves editors of the obligation to actually do the hard work of evaluating sources on genuine merit, and we should not condone such laziness and stupidity here. --LDC (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    I did the hard work before responding, that was the reason for its original listing which wasnt disputed at the time and which everybody supporting its removal said they couldnt find. The person making the request has two accounts the other accounts edits were removed as spamming, they were also WP:COI given it was the sites owner and the sources author that was adding them. I have asked for information on this person request saying that another person wanted to add them to an article, surely if this is such an important relaible source then that shouldnt be a problem. Gnangarra 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    Grudgingly support removal: RWW should not be on the spam list, and I believe its inclusion there is a regrettable error that should be corrected without delay. However, Ricmac's overly dramatic, ill-informed, and divisive request is disappointing. Also, his apparent efforts to canvass high-profile Wikimedians is against the spirit of deliberation and consensus-oriented decision making that we aspire to on Misplaced Pages. -Pete (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support removal simply because it's not spam. Our policy on citations still applies. -- Earle Martin 22:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC) (an enwp admin)

    Its was at the time of listing, Gnangarra 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support removal: A blanket ban on blogs is absurd, and I would think that those deeply involved with Misplaced Pages would have a more modern understanding of the publishing landscape. I do understand that some standard should be applied to publications to determine their suitability for inclusion. Perhaps that should be based on its age, readership, or its own notability. My belief is that RWW meets this standard at least as well as many of the references that currently are allowed. Dtunkelang (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    I've struck the comment above, because it's based on a false premise. There is no blanket ban on blogs. -Pete (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    I've unstruck my comment--I've never heard of comments being struck on talk pages. If there's no such ban, I stand corrected. But please be civil. I also apologize for commenting anonymously; I didn't realize that I had not logged in. I've corrected that mistake. Dtunkelang (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    My apologies, Dtunkelang -- I think striking the comment was maybe a little hasty and extreme. It was not my intent to be uncivil, but I see how it would come across that way. I am frustrated in this discussion by how loosely inaccurate facts have been bandied about. Anyway -- I am sorry and appreciate your reply. -Pete (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    Apology accepted. But I still don't understand why a reputable blog would be blacklisted. Like the New York Times and other media, RWW has its ups and downs. But it surely isn't any less reliable a source than many of the online media sites regularly cited. It does seem that someone has singled them out arbitrarily.Dtunkelang (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    Looking through the edit history of Richard MacManus, I personally find it entirely unsurprising that it was blacklisted. Blacklisting generally results from the behavior of the editor, not the content of the site. In this case, Richard twice added links to his own site (which is generally frowned upon under the Conflict of Interest guideline). His two explanations for the addition called those who reverted the changes as "idiots." Do you find it surprising that his efforts were met with a simple blacklisting? I don't. That doesn't mean the blacklisting should be permanent; I'd rather see him assure us that he will be more judicious and civil in the future. -Pete (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    Sounds like a reason to blacklist him as a contributor, but not to blacklist the blog as a reference to be cited by others. After all, nobody rational punishes Misplaced Pages just because its founder edited his own bio. I'll admit I'm not as informed on this debate as I'd like to be. I do know that I've seen external links removed from entries I edit for reasons that felt arbitrary, but I've hesitated to take a strong stand because the policy on external seems vague. Perhaps that's inevitable. In this case, I misunderstood the policy as making an artificial distinction between newspapers and blogs, and had a knee-jerk reaction. Now it seems that a site is being blacklisted as a source because of the behavior of its editor on Misplaced Pages. That strikes me as retribution against the wrong target. Dtunkelang (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, I think you're exactly right. I think the original decision was incorrect, and should be reversed. All I'm saying is that I think whoever made the decision did so under difficult circumstances, and should not be vilified. Typically, sites with editors who are pushy and uncivil do not make the best sources; sometimes that judgment is made in a hasty fashion, because there are lots of sites to evaluate. Clearly, RWW is an exception. There was no conspiracy or bad intent to exclude RWW; it simply took a while before the issue came to light. With the number of people here supporting removal, I'm sure it will be un-blacklisted soon. I guess I'm just baffled at why anybody sees the need to pile on beyond that, quote and mischaracterize policies unrelated to blacklisting, and generalize about the decision processes of Misplaced Pages. I'm not singling you out, Dtunkelang -- I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I'm not sure my words are helping anything here, so I'm going to move on. -Pete (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support removal because this site clearly has an editorial process (one that is, apparently, good enough for the New York Times) and is obviously not some 'self published' site, in the sense that its not just someone tossed up to put out their own opinions but rather has an entire staff. Counting this as 'self published' is a bit ridiculous. --Tedivm (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support removal. Not spam. "It's a blog and therefore not a reliable source" is not a reason not to remove a site from this list. --Conti|✉ 01:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    Strongly support removal. RWW is as reliable, as any IT related newspaper / magazine. Saying that "it's a blog and therefore not a reliable source" is purely senseless, especially when more and more newspapers / magazines are published online with use of blogging software.--Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    Removed

    I have removed ReadWriteWeb from the spam blacklist. My justification for this action is available on my user talk page. I will not be immediately available for comment as explained there. Please feel free to continue the discussion; if opinions change, the action is certainly reversible. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 06:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    A blog posting now recounts the experience here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    The Spamming Users

    As requested these are some of the users that were spamming RWW into articles, which was the reason behind the listing

    Gnangarra 12:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Troubleshooting and problems

    This section is to report problems with the blacklist. Old entries are archived

    links.com regex biting nonspammed ready-links.com and broken-links.com

    See suggestion by Beetstra re ready-links.com and discussion of similar problem] with broken-links.com. Regex expression (currently \blinks\.com\b) needs fixing, if possible. --Abd (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    Original report from log: . The spammed URL wasn't links.com, it was links.links.com. Looks to me like the regex was a simple error, the intention was to blacklist links.links.com, not links.com. links.links.com is dead. I don't see any sign of other reports involving links.com subdomains. --Abd (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    I could request delisting for links.com, but if someone wants to maintain the original blacklisting, even though continue spamming is very unlikely, the subdomain was apparently removed by links.com probably for the same reason links.links.com was reported, that would be harmless. It's just simpler to remove it than fix it, though. --Abd (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

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

    Malicious sites

    Can a site be blacklisted for being malicious? prowrestling.com is one, a Google test shows 6.97% of the pages on the site resulted in malicious content being downloaded to the users computer without their consent. My own personal experience with the site was the same, I would have to run my McAfee security sweep after visiting the site due to the problems the site would cause. Here is the Google report . I have brought this up at the wrestling project and so far they seem to agree about not using this site. TJ Spyke 02:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

    Sites that are found to be malicious, or host exploits need to be immediatly removed and blacklisted to protect wikipedias users. Another check for this can be found at http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/default.aspx . --Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Blacklist logging

    Full Instructions for Admins


    Quick Reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    Have added a supplement, a general " how-to of sorts. --Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Note: if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

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

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

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

    For those with access to IRC, there this data is available in real time. --Dirk Beetstra 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    poking COIBot

    I notice that sometimes people who are not active on IRC need some link reports. Admins here can now add {{LinkSummary|domain}} to User:COIBot/Poke, when COIBot picks up the edit to that page (and it should), it will put the domains into its reporting queue (high priority, which is, only behind waiting XWiki reports) and create a report on the link(s). The first report should be saved within about 5 minutes, if it takes longer than 15 minutes there is probably something wrong, and it may be useful to add the template with the link again (it reads the added part of the diffs (the right column)), or poke me or another person who is active on IRC personally. Hope this is of help. --Dirk Beetstra (en: U, T) 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    P.S. Please don't overuse this function, everything still needs to be saved .. --Dirk Beetstra 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --Dirk Beetstra 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Categories: