Today I added a table with some figures to the article [[Cocoa]]. Here's the edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cocoa&diff=167748653&oldid...
Note how I added a URL to back up the numbers.
It allowed me to make one more edit to the same section. After that, I couldn't edit the section anymore. Supposedly the URL that I just added is in the Spam blacklist. That is quite ridiculous seeing as I only just added it and it was accepted.
I had to REMOVE A REFERENCE in order to SAVE AN EDIT. I think this is a rather severe problem because it means that users will be prevented (even more than they already are) either from providing sources or from editing out errors.
The fact that it's a bug is further demonstrated by the fact that after I removed the URL with my next edit, it suddenly allowed me to add it straight back in. It should not have been necessary to remove it.
Timwi
"suite101.com" has been on the blacklist since November 2006: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist?diff=472751. When I tried to create a new page containing your link, the spam blacklist correctly caught it. It sounds like the spam blacklist is (or was) being enforced sporadically.
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
Should the spam blacklist even apply to established users? Twould be nice if we had a way of marking generally trustworthy, reliable users...
Steve
On 10/29/07, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
"suite101.com" has been on the blacklist since November 2006: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist?diff=472751. When I tried to create a new page containing your link, the spam blacklist correctly caught it. It sounds like the spam blacklist is (or was) being enforced sporadically.
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 10/29/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Should the spam blacklist even apply to established users?
It probably should. Since this list is used by many MediaWiki installations, not just by Wikipedia, it should only be for sites that are really spam which should never be included in any wiki, not just for sites which are ok if linked to by admins.
Angela
On 10/29/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
It probably should. Since this list is used by many MediaWiki installations, not just by Wikipedia, it should only be for sites that are really spam which should never be included in any wiki, not just for sites which are ok if linked to by admins.
Right. Either way, if an established user is unable to link in good faith
to a certain site, something has gone wrong.
Incidentally, what happens if a site is notable as a source of spam? Is it really impossible to link even once to them? I've never seen this spam filter in action...
Steve
On 10/29/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
It probably should. Since this list is used by many MediaWiki installations, not just by Wikipedia, it should only be for sites that are really spam which should never be included in any wiki, not just for sites which are ok if linked to by admins.
Indeed, I thought the feature was added to give us a technological edge over bot-net spammers (or other situations where individually blocking IP addresses isn't effective enough).
—C.W.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Should the spam blacklist even apply to established users? Twould be nice if we had a way of marking generally trustworthy, reliable users...
Steve
The problem here is that new users or anonymous editors would not be able to edit the section that the link is in, otherwise they would trigger the spam filter and would not be able to save their edit (without removing the link, of course). Since the current system for comparing edits is unreliable such a feature where by if users don't *add* the link it saves would be very difficult to create - maybe once blame functionality arives we will be able to do that.
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) wrote:
"suite101.com" has been on the blacklist since November 2006: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist?diff=472751.
Well, given what Angela said:
Since this list is used by many MediaWiki installations, not just by Wikipedia, it should only be for sites that are really spam which should never be included in any wiki, not just for sites which are ok if linked to by admins.
clearly the rule "suite101.com" urgently needs removing. Also, perhaps User:Mzlla (who added it) needs a bit of a smacking :-).
Timwi
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org