This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Links to the inside nets of university libraries are useless for anyone without the password.
Wondering if we can add anything that starts with " https://www-clinicalkey-com.ezproxy-v" to the blakclist?
So for example this would be blocked https://www-clinicalkey-com.ezproxy-v.musc.edu/#!/content/book/3-s2.0-B9780323401616001996?scrollTo=%23top
And the student would have to remove it before they save the edit. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Tryptofish, and Soupvector: I would edit-filter with 'warn and log' this on any content namespace, not use the blacklist (for now). If there is a real persistence after the edit-filter warning, then we either switch that to 'warn and block' or implement a blacklist rule. Thoughts?
Can we collect a handful of these links, I'll try and write something. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC) (missed a ping -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC))
Log only (for now): Special:AbuseFilter/892. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
First correct hit recorded. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is trying to make things hard for the "average reader", but rather, to make what has been a manual task more efficient. I agree that I am not an "average reader", but I know rather a lot about students. And I suspect that for the typical student editor, finding that they cannot save an edit and then seeing why is less WP:BITEy than being issued a warning. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
While some of these are easy enough to salvage (because there's a real DOI or jstor ID) many others are totally opaque, especially when they're added as bare urls. ProQuest search strings are among the worst. Apart from the ezproxy and ezproxy1 type links, there are also proxy.lib.xxxx.edu. Guettarda/ Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This is another inside link I am seeing being added "ucsf.idm.oclc.org" 7 additions remain after I have cleaned up some. User:Beetstra you able to add to the filter? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
When we see that we do quite well (no false-positives in a couple of days), I will turn it to 'warn and log', but for that I need to create a warning and tags (have to figure out how to do that all again). I will probably store that in MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-proxy-link (or something similar). But we develop the text here, first version:
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes an external link or reference running through a (local) proxy. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy and thus are discouraged. Please remove such links in the text you submitted. Thanks |
Just copy the whole and adapt at will, it is far from perfect (someone with a better understanding of such proxy links may be able to phrase the technical part in a more N00by way). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I've adapted a bit:
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes an link or reference running through a (local) proxy (typically, the links include '.proxy.' or similar). Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy. Please remove such links and replace them with direct links without proxy. Thanks! |
As I think we are ready to start using this filter, I have copied this to its correct place.
I am pinging all who have participated here: @ Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Tryptofish, Soupvector, and Guettarda:, the warning likely needs way more than what there is now can we please edit above message to clarify the situation more for those who do not understand why they get the warning? Maybe even a collapsed box with detailed instructions for the more common cases? Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes a link or reference running through a (local) proxy – typically, the links include '.proxy.' or similar. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy. Please remove such links and replace them with direct links without a proxy. Thanks! |
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes a link or reference running through a (local) proxy – typically, the links include '.proxy.' or similar. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy. Please remove such links and replace them with direct links without a proxy. Thanks!
|
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes a link or reference running through a local proxy – typically, the links include '.proxy.' or similar. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy. Please remove such links and replace them with direct links without a proxy. Thanks!
|
New version to be uploaded. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Tryptofish, and Soupvector:
I ran into another link that was not in the edit filter, and had a discussion with a user of that link. They, as many others according to many of the results of the AbuseFilter (892), simply ignore the filter and add the link, and in the discussion the editor suggested that they would just leave the link out altogether if we did not want it. The specific link is one of the useless type, linking to a proquest result that cannot be resolved except if one actually has the required proquest access (if you don't have access into proquest, you are left with an encoded link and a login window). An official link for the document in question does exist, but that requires some extra work (google search, finding the correct one - with more generic titles of the work that will probably fail - not a job that could possibly be done by a bot).
In numbers: since the filter was set to warn, 73 hits were obtained, 7 editors seem to have taken the warning (or just stopped), 16 editors saved the edit anyway (and some of these editors tripped the filter multiple times (I have ignored the bots).
Therefore, I am starting to be in favour to follow the original suggestion made by Doc James, and the reason why we are on this very page:
While trying to save an edit to a talk page dealing with online sites which report billing disputes, I got a red box containing the following text:
Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.
To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded. Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link. If you feel the link is needed, you can: Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page. Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia.
The following link has triggered a protection filter: pissedconsumer.com
I can't find anything online indicating this site being problematic apart from "How To Get Removed From PissedConsumer.com", a short article by a reputation management law firm offering their services in removing negative entries from PissedConsumer.com. Is the site particularly notable for spam or something worse? loupgarous ( talk) 23:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
My name is Elina and I'm the representative of Pissedconsumer.com. Today I saw your post on Wikipedia /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Spam_blacklist#Why's_pissedconsumer.com_Blacklisted and decided to contact you.
I just wanted to assure you that Pissedconsumer is not a scam, our aim is to provide a platform where customers can share their real experience. Many of our users are pissed customer that is why some companies do not like us. Some companies just want to remove reviews, some of them prepare Black SEO attacks. Our ban in Wikipedia is the result of one of such attack.
We already tried to resolve this issue with Wiki in several ways:
-
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive_20#Remove_Pissedconsumer.com_from_.22media-wiki_blacklist.22
-
/info/en/?search=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/10#PissedConsumer.com
but everything were to no avail. We would very appreciate your help in getting rid of unfair Wiki ban.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them for you. ElinaSivak ( talk) 11:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The blacklisting here is not specifically due to spam/spamming in the more classical sense. I do think that pissedconsumer.com has value as a reference in some cases, but I also think that we should control use quite strictly to avoid advocating specific problems or unnecessary negativity on companies/persons (a statement that ‘company X got 300 complaints’ is utterly meaningless if company size, visibility etc. is not taken into account and is tainting for anything that gets such statements). And yes, I would advocate that similar domains get blacklisted for those reasons on the same grounds (similar to the approach with petition sites). — Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Why is google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2sfOXufHTAhUD6mMKHYj_BQQQFggpMAA&url=http://natural-history.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/mnch/Erlandson_and_Braje_2008.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHHMbx8zVdHvrJMuFpCYf9AYfeNJQ&sig2=dNH7JQ9VmoRayVY3WFyD6g triggering as a blacklisted link? VQuakr ( talk) 08:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't black list
MithileshRazz245 ( talk) 03:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
No link to it that I could see. deisenbe ( talk) 15:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I just archived Talk:U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and ran into an issue when saving the new archive. The talk page had a blacklisted link and I was therefore unable to save the new page. I got around that by placing 'nowiki' on the link, but I'm wondering if there are any guidelines as to whether the offending link should just be removed or some other solution. (posting on Help talk:Archiving a talk page as well) Hydromania ( talk) 05:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is change.org blacklisted? 216.145.88.103 ( talk) 04:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Any reason why a Google Books link should suddenly be blacklisted? Is it somehow connected with EU Article 13 proposals? Surely not? The url format is identical to the thousands of GBooks urls I have inserted in the last decade or more. - Sitush ( talk) 06:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, https://books.google.com/books?id=ngCqCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA79 - Sitush ( talk) 06:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Running into an issue where an archived page I want to link to points to a domain that is now a spam site, but was not when the article was created. At the time of creation it was the page of The RPG Exaiminer, housed at exaiminer.com, which now just redirects to some kind of shopping/advertising spam site. The link I'm trying to use, though, is http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Fx-6911-RPG-Examiner%7Ey2009m7d24-Roleplaying-games-101-What-is-an-ENnie&date=2009-07-26. Which is not associated with that in any way. Is there anything I can do? Or is it effectively a verboten link because of the domain's current use? ― Vancian | 💬 📜 22:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Could somebody point me to the discussion re: filmreference.com? This is a longstanding, non-wiki, edited website that lists all sources for its information. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the need for a blacklist to discourage people from using those links as references. However, it is quite common for someone to some material from a blacklisted site. Our copy patrol tool identifies the site associated with the problematic material. It is our practice to do a rollback and add an edit summary identifying the source of the material. However, such a rollback fails. It's really quite annoying to have to redo the rollback. Is there a way to modify the filter so that it doesn't reject the blacklist link when used in an edit summary? If that's not an option can we talk about other options to address this recurring problem?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
GlobalResearch.ca, (www.globalresearch.ca) a conspiracy and fake news website, is often used as a reference, perhaps by editors that are unaware of its reputation. I try to remove or replace the links, using the find external links tool, but it would be better if they could be prevented. There is some cases where a link is OK, for example when writing about an author and what they published on the site, or when writing about a theory presented there. I don't know if you can add a warning in the editing process, something saying that the website that's being added is often considered unreliable? Sjö ( talk) 07:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not precisely spam, but we don't want to link to it. See: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help deleting a malicious link in a reference list. It's apparently one of those ugly pages that tries to trap your browser. Where do we report this sort to stuff? - Arch dude ( talk) 00:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: In this entry, please imagine deleting "XXX", which was added only to allow this entry to be posted.
I encountered the blacklist when I tried to post in the Talk space a link beginning https://youtu.be/
(this is the URL returned when right-clicking in YouTube and selecting "Copy video URL").
The solution, for those encountering this problem, is to change this prefix to " https://www.youtube.com".
I speculate that the reason for blacklisting just the prefix https://youtu.be/
seems to relate to its use as a general URL shortener.
David Spector ( talk) 16:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Can we get youtu.be removed from the blacklist? This is the site name that YouTube uses to refer to themselves when you ask it to generate a sharing link. It's not some generic URL shortener. It's not a spam link. It's not some deceptive way that YouTube is hiding their identify. The blacklist alert you get gives you unhelpful and incorrect advice about using the youtube.com version. The problem with that is (as far as I can tell) there's no way to construct a youtube.com URL which contains a start-time offset. So, basically, the blacklist prevents me from linking to a legitimate URL which has no acceptable substitute. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
just us[ing] the expanded linksdoes not work:
The problem with that is (as far as I can tell) there's no way to construct a youtube.com URL which contains a start-time offset* Pppery * it has begun... 15:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hubpages.com hosts monetized user generated contents and it is currently listed under Media wiki spam black list and a handful of requests made to remove it has been denied. There are many other category specific domains for Hubpages which, just like Hubpages, are self published. Doesn't it make sense to add all the other Hubpages clones operated under different domains enrolled into the spam blacklist too? They are all monetized, user generated contents hosting.
Graywalls ( talk) 18:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I had never run into the URL blacklist before, so I was surprised that the linked page at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist did not provide any links either (a) to the blacklist itself, so users can see which sites are included (or excluded, I guess); and (b) the reasons for the site being blacklisted.
Wikipedia has always been an exemplar of open policies and digestible, understandable practices, and I hope this page can be improved in that spirit. Woodshed ( talk) 03:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I think blacklist should be renamed blocklist in Wikipedia. It is actually a more logical term for this concept. Barecode ( talk) 11:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I work in IT & just saw a company email stating that many in the IT world are changing nomenclature to “safe list / block list”. It occurred to me that we should start a discussion about it here, in light of institutional racism. It may be that the underlying etymology was not racist, but I think contemporary usage requires rethinking. Peaceray ( talk) 16:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I got a notice that links to Respect (magazine), respect-mag.com, are blacklisted. Why is that?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ironic. I think we should oblige. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Links to the inside nets of university libraries are useless for anyone without the password.
Wondering if we can add anything that starts with " https://www-clinicalkey-com.ezproxy-v" to the blakclist?
So for example this would be blocked https://www-clinicalkey-com.ezproxy-v.musc.edu/#!/content/book/3-s2.0-B9780323401616001996?scrollTo=%23top
And the student would have to remove it before they save the edit. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Tryptofish, and Soupvector: I would edit-filter with 'warn and log' this on any content namespace, not use the blacklist (for now). If there is a real persistence after the edit-filter warning, then we either switch that to 'warn and block' or implement a blacklist rule. Thoughts?
Can we collect a handful of these links, I'll try and write something. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC) (missed a ping -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC))
Log only (for now): Special:AbuseFilter/892. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
First correct hit recorded. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is trying to make things hard for the "average reader", but rather, to make what has been a manual task more efficient. I agree that I am not an "average reader", but I know rather a lot about students. And I suspect that for the typical student editor, finding that they cannot save an edit and then seeing why is less WP:BITEy than being issued a warning. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
While some of these are easy enough to salvage (because there's a real DOI or jstor ID) many others are totally opaque, especially when they're added as bare urls. ProQuest search strings are among the worst. Apart from the ezproxy and ezproxy1 type links, there are also proxy.lib.xxxx.edu. Guettarda/ Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This is another inside link I am seeing being added "ucsf.idm.oclc.org" 7 additions remain after I have cleaned up some. User:Beetstra you able to add to the filter? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
When we see that we do quite well (no false-positives in a couple of days), I will turn it to 'warn and log', but for that I need to create a warning and tags (have to figure out how to do that all again). I will probably store that in MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-proxy-link (or something similar). But we develop the text here, first version:
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes an external link or reference running through a (local) proxy. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy and thus are discouraged. Please remove such links in the text you submitted. Thanks |
Just copy the whole and adapt at will, it is far from perfect (someone with a better understanding of such proxy links may be able to phrase the technical part in a more N00by way). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I've adapted a bit:
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes an link or reference running through a (local) proxy (typically, the links include '.proxy.' or similar). Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy. Please remove such links and replace them with direct links without proxy. Thanks! |
As I think we are ready to start using this filter, I have copied this to its correct place.
I am pinging all who have participated here: @ Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Tryptofish, Soupvector, and Guettarda:, the warning likely needs way more than what there is now can we please edit above message to clarify the situation more for those who do not understand why they get the warning? Maybe even a collapsed box with detailed instructions for the more common cases? Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes a link or reference running through a (local) proxy – typically, the links include '.proxy.' or similar. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy. Please remove such links and replace them with direct links without a proxy. Thanks! |
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes a link or reference running through a (local) proxy – typically, the links include '.proxy.' or similar. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy. Please remove such links and replace them with direct links without a proxy. Thanks!
|
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes a link or reference running through a local proxy – typically, the links include '.proxy.' or similar. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy. Please remove such links and replace them with direct links without a proxy. Thanks!
|
New version to be uploaded. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Tryptofish, and Soupvector:
I ran into another link that was not in the edit filter, and had a discussion with a user of that link. They, as many others according to many of the results of the AbuseFilter (892), simply ignore the filter and add the link, and in the discussion the editor suggested that they would just leave the link out altogether if we did not want it. The specific link is one of the useless type, linking to a proquest result that cannot be resolved except if one actually has the required proquest access (if you don't have access into proquest, you are left with an encoded link and a login window). An official link for the document in question does exist, but that requires some extra work (google search, finding the correct one - with more generic titles of the work that will probably fail - not a job that could possibly be done by a bot).
In numbers: since the filter was set to warn, 73 hits were obtained, 7 editors seem to have taken the warning (or just stopped), 16 editors saved the edit anyway (and some of these editors tripped the filter multiple times (I have ignored the bots).
Therefore, I am starting to be in favour to follow the original suggestion made by Doc James, and the reason why we are on this very page:
While trying to save an edit to a talk page dealing with online sites which report billing disputes, I got a red box containing the following text:
Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.
To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded. Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link. If you feel the link is needed, you can: Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page. Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia.
The following link has triggered a protection filter: pissedconsumer.com
I can't find anything online indicating this site being problematic apart from "How To Get Removed From PissedConsumer.com", a short article by a reputation management law firm offering their services in removing negative entries from PissedConsumer.com. Is the site particularly notable for spam or something worse? loupgarous ( talk) 23:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
My name is Elina and I'm the representative of Pissedconsumer.com. Today I saw your post on Wikipedia /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Spam_blacklist#Why's_pissedconsumer.com_Blacklisted and decided to contact you.
I just wanted to assure you that Pissedconsumer is not a scam, our aim is to provide a platform where customers can share their real experience. Many of our users are pissed customer that is why some companies do not like us. Some companies just want to remove reviews, some of them prepare Black SEO attacks. Our ban in Wikipedia is the result of one of such attack.
We already tried to resolve this issue with Wiki in several ways:
-
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive_20#Remove_Pissedconsumer.com_from_.22media-wiki_blacklist.22
-
/info/en/?search=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/10#PissedConsumer.com
but everything were to no avail. We would very appreciate your help in getting rid of unfair Wiki ban.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them for you. ElinaSivak ( talk) 11:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The blacklisting here is not specifically due to spam/spamming in the more classical sense. I do think that pissedconsumer.com has value as a reference in some cases, but I also think that we should control use quite strictly to avoid advocating specific problems or unnecessary negativity on companies/persons (a statement that ‘company X got 300 complaints’ is utterly meaningless if company size, visibility etc. is not taken into account and is tainting for anything that gets such statements). And yes, I would advocate that similar domains get blacklisted for those reasons on the same grounds (similar to the approach with petition sites). — Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Why is google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2sfOXufHTAhUD6mMKHYj_BQQQFggpMAA&url=http://natural-history.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/mnch/Erlandson_and_Braje_2008.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHHMbx8zVdHvrJMuFpCYf9AYfeNJQ&sig2=dNH7JQ9VmoRayVY3WFyD6g triggering as a blacklisted link? VQuakr ( talk) 08:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't black list
MithileshRazz245 ( talk) 03:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
No link to it that I could see. deisenbe ( talk) 15:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I just archived Talk:U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and ran into an issue when saving the new archive. The talk page had a blacklisted link and I was therefore unable to save the new page. I got around that by placing 'nowiki' on the link, but I'm wondering if there are any guidelines as to whether the offending link should just be removed or some other solution. (posting on Help talk:Archiving a talk page as well) Hydromania ( talk) 05:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is change.org blacklisted? 216.145.88.103 ( talk) 04:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Any reason why a Google Books link should suddenly be blacklisted? Is it somehow connected with EU Article 13 proposals? Surely not? The url format is identical to the thousands of GBooks urls I have inserted in the last decade or more. - Sitush ( talk) 06:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, https://books.google.com/books?id=ngCqCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA79 - Sitush ( talk) 06:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Running into an issue where an archived page I want to link to points to a domain that is now a spam site, but was not when the article was created. At the time of creation it was the page of The RPG Exaiminer, housed at exaiminer.com, which now just redirects to some kind of shopping/advertising spam site. The link I'm trying to use, though, is http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Fx-6911-RPG-Examiner%7Ey2009m7d24-Roleplaying-games-101-What-is-an-ENnie&date=2009-07-26. Which is not associated with that in any way. Is there anything I can do? Or is it effectively a verboten link because of the domain's current use? ― Vancian | 💬 📜 22:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Could somebody point me to the discussion re: filmreference.com? This is a longstanding, non-wiki, edited website that lists all sources for its information. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the need for a blacklist to discourage people from using those links as references. However, it is quite common for someone to some material from a blacklisted site. Our copy patrol tool identifies the site associated with the problematic material. It is our practice to do a rollback and add an edit summary identifying the source of the material. However, such a rollback fails. It's really quite annoying to have to redo the rollback. Is there a way to modify the filter so that it doesn't reject the blacklist link when used in an edit summary? If that's not an option can we talk about other options to address this recurring problem?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
GlobalResearch.ca, (www.globalresearch.ca) a conspiracy and fake news website, is often used as a reference, perhaps by editors that are unaware of its reputation. I try to remove or replace the links, using the find external links tool, but it would be better if they could be prevented. There is some cases where a link is OK, for example when writing about an author and what they published on the site, or when writing about a theory presented there. I don't know if you can add a warning in the editing process, something saying that the website that's being added is often considered unreliable? Sjö ( talk) 07:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not precisely spam, but we don't want to link to it. See: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help deleting a malicious link in a reference list. It's apparently one of those ugly pages that tries to trap your browser. Where do we report this sort to stuff? - Arch dude ( talk) 00:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: In this entry, please imagine deleting "XXX", which was added only to allow this entry to be posted.
I encountered the blacklist when I tried to post in the Talk space a link beginning https://youtu.be/
(this is the URL returned when right-clicking in YouTube and selecting "Copy video URL").
The solution, for those encountering this problem, is to change this prefix to " https://www.youtube.com".
I speculate that the reason for blacklisting just the prefix https://youtu.be/
seems to relate to its use as a general URL shortener.
David Spector ( talk) 16:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Can we get youtu.be removed from the blacklist? This is the site name that YouTube uses to refer to themselves when you ask it to generate a sharing link. It's not some generic URL shortener. It's not a spam link. It's not some deceptive way that YouTube is hiding their identify. The blacklist alert you get gives you unhelpful and incorrect advice about using the youtube.com version. The problem with that is (as far as I can tell) there's no way to construct a youtube.com URL which contains a start-time offset. So, basically, the blacklist prevents me from linking to a legitimate URL which has no acceptable substitute. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
just us[ing] the expanded linksdoes not work:
The problem with that is (as far as I can tell) there's no way to construct a youtube.com URL which contains a start-time offset* Pppery * it has begun... 15:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hubpages.com hosts monetized user generated contents and it is currently listed under Media wiki spam black list and a handful of requests made to remove it has been denied. There are many other category specific domains for Hubpages which, just like Hubpages, are self published. Doesn't it make sense to add all the other Hubpages clones operated under different domains enrolled into the spam blacklist too? They are all monetized, user generated contents hosting.
Graywalls ( talk) 18:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I had never run into the URL blacklist before, so I was surprised that the linked page at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist did not provide any links either (a) to the blacklist itself, so users can see which sites are included (or excluded, I guess); and (b) the reasons for the site being blacklisted.
Wikipedia has always been an exemplar of open policies and digestible, understandable practices, and I hope this page can be improved in that spirit. Woodshed ( talk) 03:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I think blacklist should be renamed blocklist in Wikipedia. It is actually a more logical term for this concept. Barecode ( talk) 11:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I work in IT & just saw a company email stating that many in the IT world are changing nomenclature to “safe list / block list”. It occurred to me that we should start a discussion about it here, in light of institutional racism. It may be that the underlying etymology was not racist, but I think contemporary usage requires rethinking. Peaceray ( talk) 16:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I got a notice that links to Respect (magazine), respect-mag.com, are blacklisted. Why is that?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ironic. I think we should oblige. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)