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 Beetstra (talk | contribs) at 03:57, 11 October 2021 (→‎renegadetribune.com: Added to Blacklist using SBHandler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. For a description of the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. For instructions on administrating the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    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 regex — 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 - 1049317936 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|1049317936#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|1049317936#section_name}}
    →A user-gadget for handling additions to and removals from the spam-blacklist is available at User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-blacklist-Handler


    Proposed additions


    ancient-origins.net

    Useless garbage which is frequently spammed and should not be used anywhere, per the obvious consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ancient-origins.net_is_surely_an_unreliable_source; where editors also express reasonable doubts that this will keep getting added in if no action is taken. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @RandomCanadian: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk Beetstra Why? WP:BLACKLIST "mostly lists spammers" etc., what evidence have you seen that it's used to spam Wikipedia? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan: I read the linked section (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ancient-origins.net_is_surely_an_unreliable_source) as a community consensus that these additions of this 'useless garbage' will 'forever be [being] added', and that editors 'wouldn't mind the entire site being added to the blacklist', and that this site should not be added as it will only result in more work afterwards. Yes, material gets added when it is spammed as per WP:BLACKLIST (note that there has been a spammer for this site as well, but that seems rather minimal), but also when there is community consensus to do so outside of those reasons. Do you expect this site to be of general use and that we will see a massive influx of whitelisting requests to a level that playing whack-a-mole with good-faith additions is more efficient? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk Beetstra: That thread was purportedly started for opinion about reliability not blacklisting. As for whether I expect the site to be of general use -- I don't know what's generally useful in potential cases, I'm only assuming that some editors who used it might have had good faith, which offsets the two or three editors who used the word spam. But what's most concerning is the idea that if there's a perceived WP:RSN thread consensus to blacklist that's enough. You know that WP:BLACKLIST says "However, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers." Are we at least agreeing that you didn't do this as a last resort against spammers? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have mixed feelings about blacklisting. I don't doubt that's it frequently used in good faith, and obviously the "opinion" type-stuff they publish would never meet WP:RS. The link is currently used on 200+ pages; some of the linked articles seem reasonable (e.g., www.ancient-origins.net/history/mummy-juanita-sacrifice-inca-ice-maiden-009800 for Mummy Juanita). In many cases there are probably better sources that could be used for the same info; I imagine that ancient-origins comes out on top of searches frequently given it's popularity. At the very least, if it's removed from the blacklist (or comes up at the white list), we should add a "yellow" entry to WP:RSP that makes clear that the opinion/editorial pages are not acceptable, but some simple reporting may be. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohnoitsjamie: are you referring to the reference that was removed here? I do not see where the referenced material is even in the linked document. The article references an own, totally unreferenced article on www.ancient-origins.net/history/analysis-shows-children-were-given-drugs-and-alcohol-ritual-sacrifice-500-years-ago-008571. Yes, it is popular, but Wikipedia is also popular.
    The thread on RSN reads to me that we should not be linking here at all, there is not even one maybe there. And that of 9 editors. @Peter Gulutzan: yes, the blacklist is full of material where there is RSN consensus that we should not be wasting time removing it over and over, see e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL, or many other items in RSP. Maybe the policies need to be updated to reflect that practice.
    Let us have the test at the whitelist and see if people come there with cases that obviously pass. Or another thread (RfC) at RSN? Dirk Beetstra T C 16:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a consensus that it should never be linked, I'm OK with blacklisting; my comments were based on a cursory glance at a few articles that didn't seem to be silly (unlike the editorial pages hosted there). OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk Beetstra is saying "see e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL" but the Daily Mail is not blacklisted so if it were relevant that would support my position. Dirk Beetstra is saying "Maybe the policies need to be updated to reflect that practice". I'm saying no, the practice needs to reflect the guidelines (i.e. WP:BLACKLIST and WP:LINKSPAM), and Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting guidance for administrators, no maybes. Dirk Beetstra is suggesting going to whitelist, or WP:RSN. I'm saying no, Proposed removals looks more appropriate. I'll wait a few days in case there are other comments on this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not without precedent, Infowars and Opindia are blacklisted for similar reasons. Policies are supposed to be descriptive and not prescriptive anyway. - MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie: I believe I have evidence that you're mistaken about Infowars, see my reply to Dirk Beetstra below. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan:, sorry, I was of the impression that the dailymail was also blacklisted, like e.g. Breitbart, opindia, inforwars, natural news, mylife, swathes of fake news sites (including e.g. lenta.ru).
    Wikipedia decides by consensus. Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting states "Evidence- There should be clear evidence of disruption, persistent spamming or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". I see a consensus that an external link (also as used in a reference) is to be deprecated and that all use is inappropriate (it violates Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guideline / verifiability policy), and where in that consensus several people call it 'spam' and there is a suggestion to blacklist, without any opposing views. Those 9 editors see this like that. I now have two choices: either I bring the opinion that this is not spam, not violating policies and guidelines, that their opinion is not enough to blacklist this material, so becoming in party in the discussion, or I can implement what 9 people are all saying without anyone disagreeing with their point (well 3 choices, I can ignore it at all and frustrate the 9 of them). Now, that consensus can change. It is also fine that you want to challenge my reading of the consensus of the WP:RSN thread. Both need a discussion, not just a call of bureaucracy (I already agreed that the spamming that occurred was not major enough to warrant blacklisting on those grounds alone).
    So as said, it is common practice to blacklist material not because it was spammed but because the community decides that they are finished with having to clean out these links because all (or the far majority of) uses are either (good faith) misuse or abuse. There are whole sets of sites on there which were never spammed, but for which the abuse is so extensive that there is no other way to stop it. That goes for the far majority of the pornographic sites (e.g. redtube), redirect sites (e.g. tinyurl.com) - many have never been spammed, but not restricting their use would require maintenance on a daily basis, and many would be missed and stay there. The spam blacklist is just another way to protect the encyclopedia against disruption, misuse and abuse. Edits that either need reversing, or follow-up cleanup because the information added is, at best, unreliable or plainly wrong.
    Yes, practice should follow policies and guidelines, but with the understanding that policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. WP:IAR is one thing, independent community consensus (on a public noticeboard) is another. And if community consensus regularly suggests things that are not described in a policy or guideline, then maybe that should be reflected in the policies and guidelines. That is how policies and guidelines are being written/rewritten: to reflect common practice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk Beekstra: Again you're giving examples that refute your own point of view. After getting "e.g." for Daily Mail wrong you say "e.g. Breitbart" -- but Breitbart was not blacklisted due to a consensus, the closer Fish and karate found "This does not mean Breitbart can no longer be used ..." -- Breitbart was blacklisted afterward "... to control massive spamming and disruption by JarlaxleArtemis socks".
    And as for "e.g. ... Inforwars" (I'm assuming this is a typo for Infowars) I see a report mentioning Infowars titled Beta Cluster spamming of 2018-02-18 which to me suggests it too was blacklisted due to spamming. MarcoAurelio added Infowars on 2018-02-21.
    Only two people used the word spam during the thread discussion and you missed guidance: "Note that the bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable." Some more missed guidance: "It [the blacklist] is intended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses." and "Listing should include compelling evidence of a problem." and "However, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers." and "Please provide diffs ( e.g. Special:Diff/99999999 ) to show that there has been spamming!"
    Your repeated suggestion that the guidelines should change to follow your practice, and now your suggestion of WP:IAR, make me think you're aware the guidelines are compatible with what I'm saying. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan: sorry, I still insist that this is not an uncommon practice, we blacklist because there is a community consensus that states that we should prohibit using a site. And it is NOT my practice, it is common practice to blacklist material if there is independent consensus to do so: "deprecate and blacklist", "generally unreliable and should be blacklisted", Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_265#mylife.com (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895302628). To me this is similar to speedy deletion (blacklisting according to guidelines) and articles for deletion (deletion after we reach a community consensus). Consensus is what we go by, not what policy or guideline prescribes. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of those times when guidelines need to be changed to reflect common practice. And this is a guideline, not policy. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Peter Gulutzan: you say that the thread wasn't started about blacklisting, but the first words in the thread - which I wrote - are "Which should probably be deprecated". The title I gave the thread is "ancient-origins.net is surely an unreliable source" - it's unreliability was not something I was asking about, so far as I'm concerned that's a given. I was suggesting deprecating. It's also the case that blacklisting has been used to stop bad sources from being used, not just spam. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I may not be up with current practice, but in the past bad sources that really have no business being used have been blacklisted even if not spammed - that's what I was hoping would happen but I admit I should have added "blacklisted" and not taken that for granted. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked on the relevant thread whether any of the the people who participated thought Doug Weller meant blacklisted; no replies yet. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per your question "Which people on this thread realized that you were proposing to add ancient-origins.net to the spam blacklist" At least 2, one of which was myself and I stated as much, and the other one actually went and asked for it to be added at the blacklist page. (and now a 3rd below your question on that page explicitly states it) And now that it has been implemented (and several days ago at that), you are the only person disagreeing with it, and only on what seems like bureaucratic hairsplitting grounds. What exactly is your goal here? Heiro 23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I like to think I've been serious despite some reactions. As for my goal here, I said that after a few days I intended to go to Proposed removals. On second thought, I'll wait for a better hill to die on. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I have formally closed the RSN discussion in favour of adding this site here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    boyfriendhusband.men

    boyfriendhusband.men: 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

    A website masquerading as a mirror to be included on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.

    Diff: Special:Diff/1045524647 SimoneBilesStan (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not correct: one page/article is a mirror (CCBYSA3.0-compliant) https://www.boyfriendhusband.men/dating-wiki not the whole website, which does not claim to be or "masquerade" as a mirror of the entire EN wiki. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 16:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The person behind this website, whose name is in the footer, has a long history of abusing Wikipedia to promote himself and his projects. He also subsequently attempts to scrub information when the projects become a problem. This is why I maintain the website is spam. I can support these claims with diffs spanning about 10 years, if necessary. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The name was recently removed from the footer. I have archives, so I can demonstrate it was there. You can still find the name on the Contact Me page. If you look at the Pinterest URL provided, it's in the username. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find any instances of attempts to spam this website to Wikipedia. You're going to need some concrete examples of spamming to get this site blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohnoitsjamie: I am not aware of other instances for this specific website. The author behind the website has a long history of using Wikipedia to promote himself and his projects though. There are past sockpuppet cases, articles for deletions, and more which support this. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SimoneBilesStan: If it's one user, is that user blocked? If it's multiple users, has there ever been a sockpuppet investigation opened? The blacklist is for blacklisting sites, not people, and you're basically asking for a pre-emptive blacklist entry. Disruptive people, on the other hand, get blocked or banned. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anachronist: Yes, the person behind the website has been blocked in the past.
    There are also discussions about the website's author's attempt to add articles.
    This is a very small sample of his activity. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that is good to know.
    The fact remains that this website has not been spammed on Wikipedia. What you're asking for is to establish a practice of blacklisting a domain that can be traced to a single problematic owner. I cannot help but be reminded of a somewhat analogous situation in which all IP addresses associated with the Church Scientology were blocked from editing Wikipedia. That situation needed ArbCom involvement, and this feels similar: establishing a new practice requires a much broader discussion than what normally goes on here on this page. If we had a blacklisting policy document, creating one or expanding an existing document would similarly require broad community involvement.
    So for now, Not done. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    infinitygalaxy.org

    Using sockpuppets to evade scrutiny. - MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    wapexclusive.com, wapexclusive.com.ng

    First link was spammed by at least two users, a new user cropped up today the span the second variant (both point to the same page). plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC) OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ohnoitsjamie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Shock sites spammed by an LTA

    There's an LTA who tries fooling Wikipedia editors into clicking on external links to shock sites. See for example the signature in this diff. gnu57 19:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Genericusername57: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    99lyricstore.com

    Indian lyrics website, spammed again today despite warnings. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    renegadetribune.com

    Original request at WP:EFR ([1]). Holocaust denial website. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @RandomCanadian: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    idebate.org

    idebate.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

    I was brought to this blacklist while editing Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships where I have been adding references to the winner entries. For 2006 (Elizabeth Sheargold) I wish to add https://idebate(.)org/news/monash-win-australs-2006 and for 1999 (Dan Celm) I would like to add https://idebate(.)org/news/austral-asian-debating-championships-1999. I am sure there will be many more pages from this website as more entries at the article still needs to be referenced. I have gone through the old discussions on removing this site from the blacklist, and I see that they were declined because there was no justification on use in Wikipedia. I believe the blacklisting was done because of a wiki on the site which no longer exists. Jay (Talk) 05:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jay: I agree with you that the original blacklisting appears to be due to spamming links to user-generated content that no longer exists (wiki.idebate.org and ru.idebate.org are gone, and the "community" tab on idebate.org is empty).
    So, considering that we take seriously removal requests from trusted, high-volume editors (particularly administrators)...  Done. I have removed it.
    If anyone objects and restores it to the blacklist, then see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012#idebate.org 2. My reply under my previous username Amatulic still applies, particularly the part where I say URL patterns can be whitelisted and not just specific URLs. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the prompt response. Now I'm able to add the refs to the article mentioned. Jay (Talk) 06:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dailyhunt.in

    dailyhunt.in: 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 Dailyhunt.in is the official website of Dailyhunt which means this website is real so please remove this website many newsapers upload news in this website it is not a fake website it is the official website of Dailyhunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:51da:ba8d:c97d:f15d:6d6b:7393 (talk • contribs)

    no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. Dailyhunt is the only legitimate place where this may be of use, and that is why we have a whitelist (well, we link dailyhunt.com so the official website is already covered). All other uses are and should remain prohibited, therefore delisting is declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am skeptical that even a request to whitelist a link would be approved, if the .com domain is already linked in the article. It certainly wouldn't be approved for any of the articles it aggregates; one should use the original news source instead, not an aggregator site. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instructions

    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.



    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1049317936"