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 Ethicalv (talk | contribs) at 23:10, 4 December 2012 (→Avoiceformen.com). 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 – 526422766 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions


    limogesboutique.com, limogesboxcollector.com, limogesdirect.net, perfectlimoges.com, and limoges.com


    There have also been numerous other IPs, but I have listed only those that have been used recently.

    The problem has mainly been spammings of the article Limoges Box, ranging from May 2011 to November 2012. There has been edit warring between two different spammers, removing one another's spam and adding their own, with Miraluck and 97.96.242.159 on one side and 71.105.235.16 and 96.229.138.69 on the other.

    Examples from Miraluck and 97.96.242.159:

    • Miraluck adds links to www.limogesboutique.com [1] [2] [3]
    • Miraluck removes links to www.limogesboxcollector.com [4] [5] [6]
    • 97.96.242.159 adds links to www.limogesdirect.net and www.limogesboutique.com, and removes links to www.limogesboxcollector.com [7] [8] [9] [10]


    Examples from the other side (71.105.235.16 and 96.229.138.69):

    • 96.229.138.69 adds links to www.limogesboxcollector.com [11] [12] [13]
    • 96.229.138.69 adds link to www.limogesboxcollector.com and removes link to www.limogesboutique.com [14]
    • 71.105.235.16 adds links to www.limogesboxcollector.com [15] [16]


    There have also been spammings to several other articles, going back at least as far as July 2008, as in this edit, where Miraluck adds links to www.limogesboutique.com, www.limogesdirect.net and www.perfectlimoges.com to Limoges porcelain, this edit where the same editor adds the same links to Kaolinite, and this edit where 72.184.14.93 adds a link to www.limogesboutique.com to Porcelain, this edit where the same IP adds the same link to Limoges porcelain. Particularly striking is this edit, where 86.147.252.72 adds a spam link to www.limoges.com with the totally misleading edit summary "deleted link spam". (The edit only adds a link, and does not delete anything.) Links to the same site are added here here here and numerous other times over the years. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Great report James, thank you. All have been plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    aochiworld.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 08:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    Proposed removals

    latestmoviez.com

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

    I was trying to add a news link as a source and found that it is not possible. I thereby request the Wiki admins to review the site and remove it from the blacklist. Or atleast as of now whitelist this url: latestmoviez.com/kareena-kapoors-wedding-dress-revealed/

    Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.159.213 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately its blocked due to Excessive abuse. However, there are plenty of alternatives availiable such as http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/gupshup/2012/kareena-kapoor-wedding-dress-revealed-096924.htmlno Declined--Hu12 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well i do see that alternatives are available. I was just wondering how an authority site like that could have been banned. Anyways thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.159.213 (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Its not an authority site.--Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It is Khalid here from LatestMoviez , i came here to try again for a removal from wiki spamlist. Sir, we are a team of journalists providing the latest Bollywood updates. Please remove us from the spam-list so that we can add our original unbiased critic reviews in the appropriate sections on wiki movie pages. All said in good faith, once we are off the spam list we will never give you reasons to get us back there. I have personally gone through all wiki guidelines and confirm that having understood them all will be done as it is meant to be. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.129.198 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Khalid, we've covered this ground many times before. Your people were happy to ignore us until they got blacklisted. We're not here to facilitate your business:
    Here are possibly related domains:
    These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted
    We do not remove domains from the blacklist at the request of site-owners. Frankly, we'd be crazy to do so in your case, given your organization's history of abusing our site.
    If your material is as excellent as you say, then should a trusted, established editor wish to use one of your pages as a reference, they can make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist to get a specific URL allowed for an article. An administrator will review the request and if there's a compelling reason and if your page meets the requirements of our Reliable Sources guideline, then a link to that specific page may be approved.
    Some search engine staffs may or may not refer to our blacklist when evaluating web sites for link spamming penalties. If they do this and if it affects your site's standings, I encourage you to take this up directly with the search engine firm; we have no control over this.
    I encourage you to never spam Wikipedia again. We sure don't appreciate it and in the long run, it's probably a very poor business decision for your company.
    I will review those other domains in the next day or two. I had planned to do this but forgotten until you raised the issue of latestmoviez.com again.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    > I encourage you to never spam Wikipedia again.
    > [O]nce we are off the spam list we will never give you reasons to get us back there. I have personally gone through all wiki guidelines and [...] understood them
    Surely not ...
    > Please remove us from the spam-list so that we can add our original unbiased critic reviews [to] wiki movie pages.
    Rejected. No means no. MER-C 04:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I simply hope we can make things work out again. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.138.47 (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklist evasion:
    MER-C 11:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another
    --Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Range 117.205.128.0/20 (talk • contribs • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Blocked, urls plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added 3 related domains: noaho.net, mp3gag.info, mybloggingways.blogspot.in
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Plain text spamming:

    Username matches discussion above. MER-C 13:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Registrant/Owner: Khalid Khan Spammer(s) blocked--Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to mention it here, but a few days ago I changed the regex to catch any TLD of latestmoviez. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Facebook.com/ShakespearsSisterOfficial

    This is plain weird, but for some reason the official music page of Shakespears Sister on Facebook is blacklisted specifically. There is nothing vulgar or pornographic on the page, it's simply an artist page with important news and announcements, that is essential to use as a source.--Meluvseveryone (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are the relevant links supporting the blacklisting: [17] [18] [19]
    Apparently the page was spammed multiple times, and the person controlling the page was unable to demonstrate that the domains registered, and by association the facebook page are indeed official as claimed. I don't see any reason to remove from the blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Avoiceformen.com

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

    This request is for the ban on avoiceformen.com to be removed, at least on a page by page basis. I reviewed the original complaint about how various australian IPs had been adding this men's rights activist blog/website to articles. I looked at the examples and agree they were abusive but that the site is too important to allow the site to be banned because of actions of potentially one misguided user roaming internet cafes.

    How the link can be useful on Wikipedia: avoiceformen.com is the largest men's rights organization in the hundreds of websites and blogs known collectively as "the manosphere". The term "manosphere" has over 74,000 results in Google and is mentioned in various government reports but has yet to appear in wikipedia. With men perceiving that they have been largely censored from expressing their opinions on gender issues in the mainstream media, the community is almost exclusively online. Avoiceformen.com offers an explanation of terms, concepts, that are indispensable describing this growing social movement. I have quite a number of wikipedia additions I've drafted to describe those terms and concepts used throughout the men's rights movement. Not having the ability to reference Avoiceformen.com without having each link approved will be a big inconvenience for me, but not having the ability to reference the site at all will make the effort practically impossible, since a great many of the men's rights activits in the english speaking world have written for, or are in some way associated with the website. As a third party who does not work for avoiceformen.com nor has any formal relationship with the operator of the site or any employee of the site, I feel that whether or not one agrees with it's precepts there is significant benefit in allowing this movement to be documented neutrally and impartially in wikipedia.

    Reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore: Blocking such an important men's rights website in its entirety for the misuse of potentially one single australian user makes as little sense as blocking youtube.com for the abuse of one video channel. Furthermore the website is based out of Texas not Australia. The owners of the site may have opinions that are disagreeable to some, but they appear to be quite fastidious about properly citing what they believe reliable sources rather than inserting fake references as the spammer has done. The spam was almost certainly not from the site itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethicalv (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 December 2012

    I took a quick look at the main page for this site -- it doesn't look like it meets our requirements of our reliable sources rules (see WP:RS) -- am I missing something? If it doesn't, then I don't see much value in removing this from the blacklist.
    Also, some of the site's pages potentially pose major WP:BLP (Wikipedia jargon for "libel") problems should someone link to them from here.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2012#avoiceformen.com for a detailed look at this domain's history on Wikipedia.
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm reopening this request for removal as I believe the editor has completely missed the point. Avoiceformen.com is a large part of an almost exclusively online movement (the "manosphere") that nevertheless consists of hundreds of websites, blogs, and forums. Whether or not one agrees with its positions, it needs to be documented. It is categorically impossible to document such an online movement on wikipedia if its main proponents can't be referred to in wikipedia. It's also important not to stray from the proper intent of the spamlist. The argument about the site potentially containing libel is applicable to the approval of an individual article not to the banning of an entire website as spam. And as for writing an individual article, I'm sure you would agree its certainly possible to document them from a neutral position, simply representing their opinions as being "their opinions" without attaching any bias.

    As for whether a website is a credible source for an article. If the article is about an online movement, there obviously can be NO BETTER source than the websites themselves that are being discussed.

    Finally it's important to note that this online movement (the "manosphere") arised in response to what they felt was the well documented censorship in the mainstream media of any male opinions on gender issues that dissented from what they refer to as feminist doctrine. So although the movement literally contains hundreds of sites that receive a HUGE amount of combined web traffic, regardless of whether it's because of this censorship they mention or because of their own choice, they are ABSOLUTELY INVISIBLE in the mainstream media. In addition to the fact that its obviously more accurate to document them by referring to them directly, there is also NO OTHER WAY to document them. Again, bear in mind that Avoiceformen.com is the LARGEST website worldwide in the men's rights section of the "manosphere". Banning any reference to the chief source of an entire movement is tantamount to censoring out the existence of that movement. I'm sure that as someone who's taken their valuable spare time to edit wikipedia, you value wikipedia too much to see it robbed of the opportunity to be more complete. Ethicalv (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is a blog/forum/wiki site which fails Wikipedias specific requirements of the External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. It was added as a result of abuse and most everything you mention are not valid reasons for removal nor does any of that have merit on whether this site is a Verifiabile or Reliable Source. Not being a "Verifiable Reliable Sources" means using any those links can violate WP:BLP. Your statement;
    • "Banning any reference to the chief source of an entire movement is tantamount to censoring out the existence of that movement."
    Arguing "censorship" as a method to get a site de-listed is vexatious. Therefore, this is closed and no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Avoiceformen.com

    I respectfully request that you take the time to consider and address my specific arguments rather arguments rather than responding with a blanket argument such as "everything you mention is not valid nor does any of that have merit on whether the site is considered a verifiable source". Ending the discussion so abruptly with such an unhelpful ultimatum rather than engaging in a good faith effort to resolve the issue is far more vexatious than any misinterpreted comment I may have made. I hope we can continue to work towards a solution without such talk in the future.

    You misunderstood my entire argument as to why that content is suitable. I seek to document the manosphere. I do not seek to present it's views as mainstream or authoritative on any issue. By any definition websites of the manosphere are certainly "reliable sources" for any insight on the positions of the manosphere itself, even though they are not a considered a reliable source for opinions on other issues. This usage is clearly allowed within wikipedia, such as with the article on the Time Cube. The article refers directly to that website exactly as I suggested would be appropriate in the case of the manosphere. Also though by any measure the concept of a Time Cube is certainly "fringe", that was no reason to exclude the concept from wikipedia, because the article doesn't attempt to state that the interpretation is accepted by anyone other than its creator. This is EXACTLY what I propose to do.

    Further justification for the removal of the ban is that "reliable" mainstream sources have identified avoiceformen.com as being authoritative for the manosphere. So using using avoiceformen.com as a source for the usage of terms within the manosphere that it is part of is then perfectly within wikipedia's Verifiabile and Reliable Source policies.

    Your assistance is appreciated.

    Completed Proposed removals

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Logging / COIBot Instr

    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.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry 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 who adds 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. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion


    Possible malware

    There's a question at RSN about a possible malware site. Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Please_check_the_source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ran the url through a few malware/threat detectors, seems its ok.
    Here are a few scanner tools that could be usefull.
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Log?

    Just a quick question, is there a log of edits that trigger the spam blacklist, analogous to the edit filter log? Deli nk (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=526422766"