Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A. B. (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 15 April 2008 (→‎factualsatisfaction.freehostia.com: myspace.com/official_toronto_raptors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 205676471 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    freerepublic.com

    This is as a result of a discussion here[1] about the usage of FreeRepublic.com as a reprinting service for a primary source. I was curious to see what other articles linked to FreeRepublic and found a small handful on en and on other languages. In looking into the specific links in article space what I'm finding is that FreeRepublic is often being used in lieu of linking to the actual source [2][3], where it exists in a web archive [4], or just to link to it in the external links section[5]. I'm sure the articles were linked as references in good faith, but given that FreeRepublic is an unreliable source, should it be blacklisted and then whitelisted onto articles related to the site, added to one of the spambots, or periodically cleaned up by hand? --Bobblehead (rants) 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FreeRepublic.com is an unreliable source (self-published source) that includes a portion of a site that reprints articles from reliable sources (copyright violations). Most of the reprints actually include links to the reliable source's article, so the only reason they are being included is for traffic. FreeRepublic is itself a notable website, so freerepublic.com itself should be whitelisted, but at a minimum the area for the reprints (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news) should be blacklisted. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just checking on the status of getting this site blacklisted. Please see the following discussion for more details.[6] Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes! I'm sorry everybody's overlooked your request. I started to blacklist it just now but discovered there were >1000 links in our articles and talk pages. Blacklisting it without removing the links will lock up those pages preventing editing until the link is removed. This is disruptive and frustrating for our editors given the way the software filter's pop-up notice works: it returns editors to our main page, causing them to lose their edits. Normally we remove the links before blacklisting them.
    Is there any evidence this link has been spammed? Or is it just a poor source that innocent editors have linked to out of ignorance? Evidence of spamming would help make your case.
    From my own (painful) experience with massive link removals such as this, you may get some very forceful feedback from editors who think it's a useful link. It helps to broaden the discussion as much as possible ahead of time to be able to demonstrate broad consensus if there's pushback afterwards. I suggest leaving notes at WP:AN, WP:CV and WP:VP briefly stating the problem and referring folks to your Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion.
    Once you get a good consensus, I suggest you then round up a posse of volunteers to start removing the links. I suggest using the following in your edit summaries:
    • remove freerepublic.com link per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#FreeRepublic]], [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#freerepublic.com]] and [[Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking to copyrighted works]]
    Where a freerepublic.com link is used as a reference, you'll want to either link to an alternate source or at least leave a {{fact}} tag in its place.
    I know it must sound like I'm trying to make this hard for you but I'm not. What I've described actually turns out to be the easiest, least disruptive way to handle a problem like this one.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    mother-surrogate.net & mother-surrogate.com

    The same user (193.33.49.9) keeps inserting these Ukrainian commercial sites (advertising). The IP address for both URLs is 82.144.223.6. The affected page is Surrogacy, but they also added to Commercial surrogacy, which has since been merged into Surrogacy. I have not included the diffs, the user IP above links to the contribs page. As can be seen the user has edited only these two articles. The user IP is (not surprisingly) also registered to the Ukraine. It should also be considered whether this user IP is to be blocked. TINYMARK 06:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Accounts
    Added links to help review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, TinyMark and Barek. Nothing piques my interest like a spammer trying to delete spam records -- it's always an encouragement to dig a little deeper. So after additional digging, there appear to be more domains. Also I found this stuff was spammed cross-wiki, so it should be blacklisted at meta:Spam blacklist. I'll work on that later today. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Related domains:


    Possibly related domains:


    Accounts on other wikis:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    See:
     Defer to Global blacklist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    provacylonline.com

    Added by multiple IPs, all from Belarus, to multiple articles. A few examples: [7] [8] [9] -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spamming of this site continues with new IPs. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Domain


    Accounts


    Related domain


     Defer to Global blacklist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Now listed on the meta blacklist:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    dianaring.com

    A retail link being continuously re-inserted to the Diana, Princess of Wales by multiple users. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#User:Cryellow for prior reporting of the issue. Related difs identified over the period April 2, 2008 through April 10, 2008: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If Cryellow has stopped, maybe we should wait and see. What do you think? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    mychurch.org

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

    Social networking site extensively spammed persistently by multiple IPs, see WT:WPSPAM#spam.mychurch.org. MER-C 03:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blog.goo.ne.jp/umineko300 -- opinions wanted

    Domain
    Account

    This Japanese language blog link was used in BLP attacks on Ernst & Young executives in Japan; here's an example. I removed the link and warned the IP adding it. Normally we'd give a domain several chances but in this case, I think we should blacklist it now, given the BLP issues. Also, while I found no evidence it's been used on the Japanese Wikipedia or any other projects, I'm wondering if we should blacklist at meta.

    What do others think? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    factualsatisfaction.freehostia.com

    Domain
    Account
    Reference

    Spamming continued after the March report in spite of multiple warnings and two blocks. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    myspace.com/official_toronto_raptors

    Domain


    Accounts

    Contrary to it's name, this does not appear to be an official team myspace page. For starters, it carries the tag,

    "This profile is set to private. This user must add you as a friend to see his/her profile."

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    Request unlisting of aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/meagan_good

    It gives critical information on her heritage and is of great help since finding information on heritage of multiracial actors is quite difficult i.e. Jada Pinkett Smith is part Cherokee however this is hard to find since it isn't posted on the internet.Thank You Mcelite (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

    Request unlisting of hubpages.com

    • Notability and Importance

    The domain has established notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HubPages). We should be able to link to the domain's main page "www.hubpages.com" on the article concerning it. It feels pretty straightforward that we want to have an external link to the subject at the bottom of the article.

    • Rectified potential problem behavior

    While people used wikipedia to promote their own hubs in the past, this behavior is reduced since HubPages has hired additional staff to remove overly promotional hubs. Furthermore, the chronic problem of site members incorrectly adding their links to wikipedia articles can be prevented on a case by case basis. After all, some hubs constitute relevant verifiable research. mroconnell (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HubPages links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    While it may be encouraging that hubpages is attempting to controll content, it is not a reason to delist at this time,  Not done. I have however whitelisted the root (main page) page (www.hubpages.com/index.php) for use in the article HubPages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a "Verifiable Reliable Source" (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available. main page whitelisted  Done. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whitelisting the main site is a good idea which I didn't realize was possible until after posting the request. Thanks for gathering all the policies for me and explaining things lucidly.mroconnell (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unlisting of toyotapriusbattery.com

    Having made the site for Prius enthusiasts, TPB was recently blacklisted from wikipedia. Links to Prius articles about longetivity are allowed to remain, but this site was not..why? It provides valuable information about the Prius Battery, including specifications from model to model, a FAQ about how long the battery lasts, is under warranty, etc. and articles about future improvements as well. I don't believe the site deserves to be blacklisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarius (talk • contribs) 13:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    secretleaks.blogspot.com

    This URL is now dead (Blogger's "blog has been removed") and just clutters up the list, might as well remove it -62.172.143.205 (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Same with freemodlife.blogspot.com, 5050-raffle.blogspot.com, uarticles.blogspot.com -62.172.143.205 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    freeinvestmentguide.blogspot.com, fubaohealthstore.blogspot.com, onlinewebmarketing.blogspot.com too -62.172.143.205 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unlisting of kmle.com

    I am the main admin of the site, and it is nonprofit site for medical terminology. The site is of quality and really referenced in medical textbooks. Anyways I realize why the site was blacklisted: one of the admins made way to many references to it in several articles. To tell the truth I had full knowledge of this, and I will prevent this from happening again, anyways of note all the references really did reference the site and all articles were modified to be more accurate which I required the admin to do. I would hope that wikipedia can give us a second chance. Thanks, and sorry for disrupting wikipedia. Digirave (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unlisting of commonpurpose

    I have no idea why this charity's name has been blacklisted. Does anyone else? 78.86.157.63 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Blacklist logging

    {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}} →(replacing '0' with the correct "oldid" (ie. permalink) example shown here).

    For example:

    {{WPSPAM|182728001#Blacklist_logging}}

    results in:

    See WikiProject Spam report

    This should aid in requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and for use with the entry log here. I've added a snipit in the header --Hu12 (talk)


    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 T C 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    archive script

    Eagle 101 said he had one running on meta, is it possible to get it up and going here?--Hu12 10:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Would be good - Eagle hasn't been working on Meta for a while though & I've not seen anything (there was supposed to be a logging script too!) --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great news, Ive written a script that can archive this page given the templates that we use, I can create a approved archive along with a rejected archive if people are interested. βcommand 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interested" - bit of an understatement there :) Great news - please feel free to help/supply the script. I tend to leave stuff around a week in case anyone shouts or adds more (archives once done should be left alone). How would you handle the "discussion" type bits? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First question, do you want approved and rejected request in separate archives? as for the discussions we could get Misza bot over here for things older than 30 days. βcommand 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think one archive, seperate sections, like it is currently[19], not sure if the script can do that, but if so, doubt there would be objections in implementation...--Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no simple way of editing sections using the bot. (section editting is evil). it would just be one large archive. βcommand 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    petitiononline

    It's silly to block this site, it's needed for a reference in Uwe Boll#Online Petition. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In 99.9% (and maybe more) of the additions of these links are not appropriate (per WP:SOAPBOX). Specific cases should be whitelisted. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    http://www.petiti STUPID SPAM FILTER ononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?RRH53888 is needed for a citation, please whitelist it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Defer to Whitelist --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=205676471"