User:XLinkBot/RevertList has been protected so that only administrators may edit it due to its high sensitivity. To request a change to it, please list a request here.
Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks
User:XLinkBot generally reverts only new users (users who created an account less than 7 days ago), and IP-users, hence, users which are generally not familiar with our Policies and guidelines. This can be altered by the settings and override and lock lists.
Does the link generally get used in an inappropriate way by unestablished users, but does it not qualify for the meta spam blacklist or the local spam-blacklist since there are documents on the same server that should/could be used as an external link or reference?
Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regex — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
Close the request entry on here using either ((done)) or ((not done)) as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
Log the entry. Warning:if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number - 790342735 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. The sections are: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, and Discussion. Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.
Completed requests are archived. All additions and removals are also logged.
→snippet for logging RevertList requests: ((/request|790342735#section_name))
Please add new entries to the bottom of this section. Please only use the basic URL (google.com not http://www.google.com). Please provide diffs to prove that there has been spamming! Completed requests should be marked with ((Done)) or ((Notdone)) or other appropriate Indicator then archived.
Note that africa.com appears to sell their subdomains, so listing "africa.com" would be bad.
IPs have repeatedly replaced the homepages in the infoboxes of African banks with "bank.africa.com". Coincidentally, the bank.africa.com domain is being sold for an absurd amount of money, (according to bank.africa.com, at least) and has absolutely no connection to any of these banks. The spamming has persisted after three blocks. Sunmist (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable source commonly added by inexperienced editors in mostly new articles. Having XLinkBot monitor it would help not only these new editors, but any editors working with them that are unaware of the status of famousbirthdays.com. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quick status update: I'm still not seeing any spamming, just a addition every day or so in new biographies written by new or inexperienced editors. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link added to multiple article by IP users only (see contributions of linked IP users), hoping this works rather than blacklisting. Ravensfire (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This fansite is mainly being used by IPs, new and inexperienced users to source the arrivals and departures of actors from the Australian television show Home and Away. The site itself acknowledges that not all of their arrival/departure information is confirmed. Most of the links are added to List of current Home and Away characters (some recent examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]) and the character's individual articles ([5]), but I've noticed that it's also creeping into the actors' articles too ([6]), which could be a BLP issue. I feel like I'm removing links to the site almost every week now. There are (eventually) more reliable sources available to back up any arrival or departure information. - JuneGloom07Talk 21:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly inserts this domain masquerading as the official William Hill domain then redirects to the official one using an affiliate tag in order to make money. Very persistent.
This site has at least one editor here who's a fan and who persistently adds ref links to this site, despite the fact that it's an anonymously-run news-mockery site that appears to be either associated with or run by a fan of Fark. Some of the things that come through this site might be true, but would always need to be sourced to the underlying genuine source mentioned in the article, if the genuine source is indeed mentioned at all. Zad68 03:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slow edit-warring from ip's since December 2012. The link being added not only isn't a reliable source, it doesn't verify any of the information. The only editor that's responded to the discussions about this does not dispute this. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link constantly re-added by various IP addresses since November 19, 2011. The link itself was discussed during the Kent, Ohio article's FAC process and determined to not fall within the WP:EL guidelines since it is not an official website of the city (it is run by a private individual) and is not a reliable source. It is also commercial in nature. Attempts to contact the IP users directly or via the article talk page have gone unanswered and the article has been semi-protected three times in the past year and a half. No other contributions to the article have been made by the IP users, just re-adding the link to the External links section. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated additions of this - apparently, as I can't check it from a work machine - porn site link by at least 5 IP users I have been able to ID (only other reference I could find in a search was at Talk:Smoking fetishism requesting it be removed from the article in May of this year). User(s) using formatting in a - poorly executed - attempt at deception to masquerade it as a link to a government survey. besiegedtalk 00:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User exhibits pattern of adding same website – see contribs (edits 13:18, 3 July 2014 & before – afterwards user switched to talk pages & got indef blocked). Also exhibited by 203.201.61.146 and 27.34.253.98. Outside of these edits, I found the website only two other times, added by IPs (59.182.247.79, 122.172.35.71) in 2012. I've gone ahead and removed site since it is not WP:RS. Per Tinaiyer1976 (see Draft:EKhichdi.com) website lets anyone post 'news' and articles. Going to website, it seems to confirm Tinaiyer1976 statement. Thus site should not be allowed as reference or external link on Wikipedia. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LINKVIO. From inception through June 2012, TV Tropes used CC BY-SA, much like Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia. But in July 2012, TV Tropes unilaterally switched to the incompatible CC BY-NC-SA license. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like TV Tropes has been distributing the work of its pre-2012 contributors in violation of copyright for the past two years. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no lawyer either, nor am I aware of ongoing TV Tropes link abuse. Still, I'd like to concur with the request because TV Tropes appears to qualify as a self-published source. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we routinely add websites to Xlinkbot merely because they are SPS? VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely familiar with that. However, I meant "concur" in roughly the sense of concurring opinions in law: I don't object to the reason given in the original request, but I'm not qualified to evaluate it rigorously and so have no strong opinion either way. I also believe the (un)reliability of the source supports this request, but I don't know which reason holds more weight with experienced Wikipedians. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even for LINKVIO we do not regularly blacklist (only in extreme cases with reasonable abuse). Also here the question: is there any abuse by editors adding it to Wikipedia? --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is a problem, but I don't think it is abuse. If we are knowingly linking to sites that carry a lot of information that is in violation of copyright, blacklisting is generally a better option, otherwise the links will still come and stay anyway (where they simply should NOT be linked). Not done. --Dirk BeetstraTC 06:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already listed on the revert list, but needs to be added to User:XLinkBot/OverrideList as inappropriate edits referencing it are being added. [19][20][21] and many more, just see my recent edits. Most have been added in good faith by IPs and new users.--Otterathome (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at the Reliable Source Noticeboard here, EthniCelebs.com in its own Terms of Service says:
The information on Ethnicelebs is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although we may vet information to ensure its accuracy, we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate. You agree that you will not rely on our Service for any purposes which could result in a loss to you if our Service did not perform as expected and, in any event, you hereby release Ethnicelebs from any liability relating to our Service.
Despite this, Wikipedia has many links to, by its own admission, a non-WP:RS site. There doesn't seem any reason to ever use it, and editors at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist suggested it would be a candidate for XLinkBot. Placing it on the bot would save a lot of editors an enormous amount of time, and more importantly, help keep biographical articles up to WP:BLP standards. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Very old, SPI that precipitated this revertlisting has not seen new cases for over 5 years now, and as @MER-C: was originally saying, it is a worthwile source. --Dirk BeetstraTC 03:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to report problems with the blacklist. Old entries are archived
Discussion
This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are archived
Archives
Started the archives w/instruct ect.--Hu12 (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searchable archive
Please use the archive template found on most/all noticeboards, which has the nice benefit of being searchable. Belorn (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
XLinkBot logging
By clicking the history date and time (in red) will yield the oldid# (ie. permalink) version;
(cur) (last) 15:09, 8 February 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs | block) (4,241 bytes) (→XLinkBot logging: What is "correct oldid"?)
Went here to find what argument/reasoning there was behind the entry of .onion, but sadly, neither a discussion or a log entry seems to exist. This also makes it half impossible to see who added it (only option is going through the history and narrow down the edit). For transparency, would it not be good if discussion + log entry was an requirement and not just an suggestion when new entries are added? Belorn (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, there should be log entries for everything (at the very, very least who added it so you can ask). I'll have a look if I can find that.
Regarding .onion - I think I added that at some point; .onion sites fail important parts of our guidelines, namely that they are not accessible by everyone, they need a special piece of software installed. Moreover, they were at some point inappropriately pushed to certain pages, and some of them are unquestionably questionable in nature (hey, CNN is not going to be behind a tor-site ..). --Dirk BeetstraTC 03:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've indeed added it during this discussion: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2011#Hidden_wiki - it was at that time removed over and over, and only added by hit-and-run IPs. I hope this explains. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk BeetstraTC 04:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For those that are used to scripting, it might be useful to search through the current list and see if there are others without an log entry. Anyway, back to the subject of .onion, I was wondering if other sites beyond the hidden wiki site had been used in a unappropriated manner. Are there any method to see how many times xlinkbot reverted on a particular rule? COIBot link report is nice, but last entry is 2010. (just to mention, this is not an request for removal. I want to figure out how the situation looks before making up my mind). Again, thanks for a quick response and fixed log entry. Belorn (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The XLinkBot logs are just his reverts, I don't keep any other logs (except system logs, which I wipe if 'nothing has gone wrong' (technically wrong)). The database from COIBot is 'new', it restarted beginning of this year, the old data is gone (I had to change server). So there will not be much there. Something may come out of 'user talkpages which have a .onion domain linked on them' (XLinkBot leaves the reverted link in a warning, mainly for tracking purposes): Special:LinkSearch/*.onion (though that misses the '.onion.to' which was pushed.
For .onion, I remain that it fails WP:EL, but not bad enough for a blacklist (though, just about ..). XLinkBot only reverts new editors, and IPs. And XLinkBot will not revert on a undo-type action by the same editor (other editors may however revert again). So it does not exclude links, it just warns that the link that was added is generally unsuitable as an external link and reverts the edit once. Also, it ignores older editors so they can be inserted by them without the bot worrying them. So if an IP gets reverted twice by the bot on the same page, that must mean that at least the editor added the link 3 times, and that it was once reverted by the bot and once by a human editor. It is then almost sure that it is not properly discussed on the talkpage. The bot will of course revert every addition if they are to different pages, but by the time that an editor on .onion comes then to three warnings in a short time, it certainly looks like he is spamming the link.
What I am worried about, is that you don't know what is behind .onion. Surely there is good material there, but the encoded link does not show you what you are linked to. It is in a way a redirect site, and the code can very well point to child porn, as well as to pictures of rose fields. In that way, the risk is the same as linking to flickr images (which are also on the revertlist). I think therefore that it is fair to have it on the revertlist, so that the user adding it is warned, and that it is also brought to the attention of other editors, and to the attention of recent edit patrollers. Quite some are linked in mainspace, which does suggest that consensus has pointed that way (even when I can find editors who have been reverted for adding the .onion links, some have also been blocked after one addition, which suggests that that addition was abusive). --Dirk BeetstraTC 10:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have meta-blacklisted the .onion.to, which is not the official site, but a redirect to it (or better, a link to a portal for it). I first blacklisted '.onion', but I reverted that just now). If anything there should be linked, it is the .onion, and I suggest that an established editor does that (maybe after discussion, since at the moment there is a tag that the site should not be linked). --Dirk BeetstraTC 10:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if one need to worry that much about the url encoding. All url's has the ability to link to child porn as well as to pictures of rose fields. An URL is only meant to provide a method of human memorization, where a string of numbers are harder to memorize. Redirect site on other hand is a different matter, since it proxy for the request. Its the difference between a address written in a foreign language which one can not read, and getting directions from a English guide. In theory, both could lead one to the wrong place, as the person following either the sign or the guide has no power to "know" if the place is safe. Thus in the end, all one can do is to memorize and associate a bad address with a bad experience, like one can do with the hidden wiki. Anyway, my goal was to find out the reason why, and what events if any caused of the listing. I am still not sure if there has been any other site than the hidden wiki which has caused problems, so please see this as a small request for a feature in xlinkbot that provides data on problematic domains :). Given that the hidden wiki has been spammed by IP's, (but not often, say 3-5 times in the last 3 years if my memory serves me right), a revert entry to resolve that issue sound appropriate. Its a bit broad for my taste, but it does resolve the issue at hand, and one can always narrow the definition in the future if needed. Belorn (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Stale
Declined
Not done
Defer to WPSPAM
Additional information needed
Note:
