Misplaced Pages

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:28, 9 January 2008 editLazydown (talk | contribs)232 edits →Unreal Royal← Previous edit Revision as of 06:12, 9 January 2008 edit undoHu12 (talk | contribs)91,877 edits →Unreal RoyalNext edit →
Line 87: Line 87:


::It fails as a reliable source ]. That's the first thing. Next, it is hardly a scholarly attempt as it has been constructed to lead readers to think that the subject of the website is a committing fraud; which is an extreme stretch of the truth. It draws conclusions that the few sources it cites do not support. It doesn't even debate the true merits of the subjects claims but instead attempts to embarrass him. Oh, and the subject is now a notable wikipedian which is another reason it shouldn't be allowed as it is attacking a Wiki editor. But that all really doesn't matter because it still fails ].--] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC) ::It fails as a reliable source ]. That's the first thing. Next, it is hardly a scholarly attempt as it has been constructed to lead readers to think that the subject of the website is a committing fraud; which is an extreme stretch of the truth. It draws conclusions that the few sources it cites do not support. It doesn't even debate the true merits of the subjects claims but instead attempts to embarrass him. Oh, and the subject is now a notable wikipedian which is another reason it shouldn't be allowed as it is attacking a Wiki editor. But that all really doesn't matter because it still fails ].--] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Wjhonson, it does appear you have a relationship with the urealroyal site owner. This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community<sup></sup>. In spite of policies and guidelines, such as ], you chose to reject community input from impartial editors and/or administrators in order to "''battle it out''" in pursuit of a certain ]. You solicited to the owner of unrealroyal,(MAR), on , in a thead entiltled <U>Misplaced Pages is exceeding its own record of stupidity</u> "''By the way MAR, if there is something in particular about that article to which you object, let me know. '''I'm not adverse to battling it out on Misplaced Pages.'''''"<sup></sup>, which clearly demonstrates your intent to misuse wikipedia. Of course MAR replies to your offer by linking direcly to the article, my userpage and the blacklist<sup></sup>. It appears you are acting in that capacity for the purpose of influencing the blacklisting, shows of support and for performing reverts and edits on ]. Misplaced Pages has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry<sup></sup>.

Also, (a reminder), the ] on ] states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you<sup></sup> are the owner of {{linksearch|*.countyhistorian.com|countyhistorian.com}}. Unfortunately your ] (see ) involves adding links to your own site in order to promote countyhistorian.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. please cease that behavior.

As stated by MA-R "''I actually *agree* that under the policy, my site should not be used as a citation or reference''" <sup></sup>, which realy means there's nothing more to discuss at this level. thanks--] (]) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


=Troubleshooting and problems= =Troubleshooting and problems=

Revision as of 06:12, 9 January 2008

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is a page in the MediaWiki namespace, which only administrators may edit. To request a change to it, please follow the directions at Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist.
    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 Misplaced Pages only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Misplaced Pages: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 – 183127243 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    Archives

    Proposed additions

    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.


    abemadi.com

    See Special:Contributions/84.102.176.131 and Special:Contributions/Abemadi. --B (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    Cross-wiki spam:
    Domain:
    If we blacklist him it should be on meta because it's cross-wiki. I suggest waiting to see if he stops, if not, then we take him to meta. (If you read the warning I left him, you'll see that meta blacklisting is a big deal for a site owner.)
    I'm out of time right now -- if you copy the user and domain data templates I used above and make a report at WT:WPSPAM, that will automatically trigger COIbot to watch this domain.
    Gotta run --A. B. 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've made an entry at WT:WPSPAM. --A. B.
     Defer to WPSPAM --A. B. 03:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    geocities.com/snuffbottle1

    • www.geocities.com/snuffbottle1/ Chinese snuff bottle expert to Snuff bottle
    1. 61.63.105.105 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    2. 24.207.69.184 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    3. 61.63.105.72 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

    This same user keeps on (In total, 7 times.) adding the same external link despite repeated warnings of spamming. The third IP was blocked previously for this but keeps on coming back. Now the user has switched to a new IP. - see talk page.

    Humortueio (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    No. 2 IP has just been blocked by an admin for adding it again. Humortueio (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

     Done thanks --Herby 12:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    Yuwie.com

    Accounts


    Spam domain

    yuwie.com: 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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com


    Spam article

    --A. B. 01:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

     Done thanks --Herby 12:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    asianmediawiki.com lunapark6.com

    See WT:WPSPAM#spam.asianmediawiki.com spam.lunapark6.com. MER-C 03:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

    Proposed removals

    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.

    Unreal Royal

    This website http: //www.unrealroyal.com/ was blacklisted as "harassment". I am not affiliated with this website. It was claimed that the site is devoted solely to the harassment of a Wikipedian. That however, imho, is not so. The site is devoted to revealing why the particular point-of-view of a certain individual, who has an article about themselves in Misplaced Pages, is unsupportable. That is, the website is a scholarly attempt to present the evidence that refutes their claim. That is not harassment. This website is useful for showing how that claim can be refuted. As such I request the website be unblacklisted. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    no Declined Not so. The site contained an entire page devoted to outing various editors ("Misplaced Pages.htm" located at unrealroyal.com/page_1199151805093.html) and attempted to identify and harass several Misplaced Pages users. I find it highly suspicious that after the offending page has been deleted from the site, that this request is being made. Websites outside Misplaced Pages that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Misplaced Pages editors and those who choose to edit the encyclopedia is a serious matter and never acceptable--Hu12 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    The page you linked apparently does not exist, as you stated. There is no way now to determine whether what might have been there was or wasn't harassment unless someone has saved it. And if the offending page is gone, what further basis is there to continue the blacklisting? Wjhonson (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    It was up and linked for everyone to see the last four days, your not having seen it isn't grounds for delisting, nor can you assure against its return. --Hu12 (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If* removal of offending material is not a basis for de-blacklisting (white listing?) than what is? If the position of Misplaced Pages is going to be "once blacklisted always blacklisted" then why have a "Request for Removal" section at all? Wjhonson (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    First, that site contains self-published material not meeting our Reliable Sources Guideline. So it's not encyclopaedic.

    More importantly, if the site-owner was willing to post such a page, there's no assurance that he/she won't re-post it. This site is not coming off the blacklist for that reason. --A. B. 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    I've now had a chance to review the original page, which was emailed to me privately by the site owner. I see nothing on that page that passes our definition of harassment. I do see personal criticisms of a public figure. As you know, proclaiming yourself to be a King launches you into the space of *public figures*. Public figures can be criticized and if we were to black-list all sites critical of Bush, we'd lose a great number of sites. The King of Man is in that same domain. I also note that Hu12 has a possible issue of OWN as he started the BLP in the first place. I feel that it's in-appropriate for an involved editor to turn and use his admin powers in a content dispute. Whether the site contains self-published material is not relevant to it's being blacklisted. There is no assurance that any site, will or won't post whatever they post. That is a red herring argument, which has no place here. Wjhonson (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    It fails as a reliable source WP:RS. That's the first thing. Next, it is hardly a scholarly attempt as it has been constructed to lead readers to think that the subject of the website is a committing fraud; which is an extreme stretch of the truth. It draws conclusions that the few sources it cites do not support. It doesn't even debate the true merits of the subjects claims but instead attempts to embarrass him. Oh, and the subject is now a notable wikipedian which is another reason it shouldn't be allowed as it is attacking a Wiki editor. But that all really doesn't matter because it still fails WP:RS.--Lazydown (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, Wjhonson, it does appear you have a relationship with the urealroyal site owner. This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. In spite of policies and guidelines, such as meatpuppetry, you chose to reject community input from impartial editors and/or administrators in order to "battle it out" in pursuit of a certain point. You solicited to the owner of unrealroyal,(MAR), on groups.google.com, in a thead entiltled Misplaced Pages is exceeding its own record of stupidity "By the way MAR, if there is something in particular about that article to which you object, let me know. I'm not adverse to battling it out on Misplaced Pages.", which clearly demonstrates your intent to misuse wikipedia. Of course MAR replies to your offer by linking direcly to the article, my userpage and the blacklist. It appears you are acting in that capacity for the purpose of influencing the blacklisting, shows of support and for performing reverts and edits on David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). Misplaced Pages has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry.

    Also, (a reminder), the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are the owner of countyhistorian.com. Unfortunately your conflict of interest (see ) involves adding links to your own site in order to promote countyhistorian.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. please cease that behavior.

    As stated by MA-R "I actually *agree* that under the policy, my site should not be used as a citation or reference" , which realy means there's nothing more to discuss at this level. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    This section is to report problems with the blacklist. Old entries are archived

    {{db-copyvio}}

    Problem with the blacklist: I want to use the db-copyvio speedy deletion tag to get an article deleted. The db-copyvio tag has as a parameter the url of the website which is being copied. The website being copied is a blacklisted one, ezinearticles. Oops, the spam filter kicks in. This is bad.--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Try adding without the http:, the checking admin will copy & paste to check it.--Hu12 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Or don't provide the link in the db template, and add it below it (put <nowiki></nowiki> around). Or put it on my talk page and I'll have a look. -- lucasbfr 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Discussion

    This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are archived

    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)

    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 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • 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. β 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    "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 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    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. β 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    blogspot.com

    See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam § Time_for_blacklisting_blogspot.com.2C_with_whitelisting_of_specific_domains.3F

    I added countingcrowsnew.blogspot.com, freemodlife.blogspot.com, and googlepackdownload.blogspot.com to the blacklist. I made a previous report about the blogspot sites and they're being spammed by the same blocked sockpuppet who I filed a report about here. Spellcast (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    Update: I've also added b5050-raffle.blogspot.com, gpd2008.blogspot.com, and itsleaked.blogspot.com. They were being spammed by the same blocked sock in that report. Spellcast (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    I'm inclined to blacklist the domain then whitelist where needed but some heavy flak is likely to arrive? --Herby 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    From an en:Misplaced Pages mission perspective (though possibly not your personal perspective:) a bigger issue than the flak that will be generated is the disruption to editing. I believe a lot of pages, particularly biographies of living people, contain legitimate links to the subject's blog - many of which are hosted on blogspot. Simply blacklisting and then waiting for whitelisting requests will likely
    1. overwhelm the whitelist page here and on meta (which given you are one of the most active admins on both, may not be ideal for you!)
    2. be confusing and frustrating to a lot of editors especially newbies, but also any who are not familiar with the blacklist/whitelist set up
    3. lead to a loss of legitimate links and legitimate edits as people struggle to work out whether to keep their edit and lose the link or the other way round while any whitelist request is ongoing.
    I think a move like that will take some careful planning and preparation to avoid these issues (might also help cut down some of the heat). One way or another, I think we need human editors to assess the current blogspot links on article pages and enter appropriate ones on the whitelist before the blacklisting goes into effect. I don't think such a move will cut out most of the flak though, so we might want to ensure there are other admins involved to help spread the weight, and a nicely presented page of evidence of the issues the domain causes to point people to.
    Blogspot certainly gets spammed a lot more than most domains, and I support blacklisting. But It's still a domain that has a lot of good links and I think it's important to think through how a move like that will impact people, and to adjust to the situation. -- SiobhanHansa 13:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    Briefly - needs quite a bit of thought but equally is worth that amount of thought --Herby 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    There are many, many legitimate links to the domain, not only to blogs belonging to article subjects but to blogs belonging to Misplaced Pages contributors. Better to blacklist individual blogs as needed. --bainer (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    Not sure why Misplaced Pages contributors would be adding their own blogs? A very limited number of blogs actualy meet WP:RS and even fewer still meet the requirements of WP:EL or are a blog that is the subject of the article or an official page of the articles subject. There are currently 32,916 blogspot.com Blog links on Misplaced Pages, if whitelisting even a thousand "legitimate links", its worth it.--Hu12 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    You've presented some convincing reasons to leave certain blog links out of Misplaced Pages, but not a reason to leave all blog links out. Misplaced Pages contributors might want to link to their blogs because, you know, it is possible for said contributors to frequent websites on the internet other than Misplaced Pages :P See WP:COMMUNITY. There is also a performance cost to whitelisting and blacklisting; as far as I can tell, 1000 whitelisted entries costs more computationally than 1000 blacklisted entries (instead of using one large regex, which is how the blacklist works, you're doing 1000 individual regex replacements). Gracenotes § 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    I was under the impression server load was something we were supposed to leave up to the developers to worry about. If they see an issue and ask for a reassessment that would be one thing, but its not a good argument against a tactic without their weight behind it.
    The suggestion isn't that all blogs should be banned. the suggestion is that this particular domain gets spammed so much it would be beneficial to the project to blacklist it and only white list the ones that are appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    Hu12 I think it's important not to overstate the case here. Not all of the ~32,000 links (assukming the 1K of good links estimate) that are not legitimate external links or citations will actually be harmful to Misplaced Pages. While editors' own blogs on their user pages aren't necessary to the project, in the vast majority of cases they do no harm and may help editors fell a bond that connects them to the project. Many more will be links from discussions and projects. While I don't think that's a reason for keeping a domain that is also being spammed so much - it's not the case that we do 32,000 links worth of "good" by removing them. For the most part we only really benefit from the spam and poorly placed article links that go. -- SiobhanHansa 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    (unindent, crosspost my post from WT:WPSPAM)

    The rule \bblogspot\.com is (currently) not on COIBot's monitorlist. Some of the sub-domains have been added via WT:WPSPAM, or have been caught by the automonitoring of COIBot (mainly because the name of the editor is the same as the name of the subdomain on blogspot.com).

    Still, a linksearch on the resolved IP of blogspot.com (72.14.207.191) results in a mere 118 results (all COIBot linkreports)! Often the multiple use of the single subdomains is not a cause for blacklisting, as they may only have been used once or twice. Also, I suspect there are tens of thousands of blogspot sub-domains out there, but these are only the links that are caught because the wiki username overlaps with the domainname of the subdomain (or have been reported here). Would this cumulative behaviour warrant blacklisting of \bblogspot\.com .. here, or even on meta? --Dirk Beetstra 12:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    Appropriate links may indeed be a problem, though the majority will fail some or many of the policies and guidelines here (or don't even have to be a notable fact, or do not need to be a working link while being mentioned; "Mr. X has a a blog on Blogspot.<ref>primary reliable source stating that the blog is the official blog</ref>"; we are not a linkfarm), and I would argue that the spam/coi part of the problem becomes a bit difficult to control... --Dirk Beetstra 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    Crosspost spamlink template for blogspot.com to link this discussion to the linkreports from COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra 10:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please try to remember how frustrating generic, unexpected spam blocks can be for new and incautious editors. Last time I "checked", if you make an edit with Internet Explorer and you post it directly without preview (two things you should never do), then if the spam blacklist comes up your text is gone. Back arrow gets you the original text of the article. Edits that die that way may not get remade, and they may sour the editor on further contributions. I don't think there should be any blocks on top-level domains or large general purpose Internet sites. 70.15.116.59 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have to disagree in this case - there's concern that the dynamic IP spamming it is using it to perpetrate scams or send out computer bugs. -Jéské 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    There's no way we can realistically do this. blogspot has an Alexa traffic rank of 12 - it's higher than Amazon.com - and has well over 30,000 links on en.wp alone. Adding this would be incredibly disruptive to thousands of articles. Unless someone wants to go through all 32,000 links to find the ones that can be kept so we can whitelist them, there's no way we can do this. The ones that are spam should be removed and blacklisted, but WP:EL and WP:RS are not very good reasons to completely forbid links to a domain. Mr.Z-man 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    No edit box in the Spam filter notice

    Why does the "Spam filter notice" not contain an edit box? This necessitates pressing the back button which in IE (I'm reluctantly using it at the moment) means all edits are lost. There's a possible way around it, to open the article in a new tab, remove the spam link, save it, and then hit refresh in the "Spam filter notice" window to resubmit, but this is a hack and we shouldn't be inconveniencing innocent users like this. (Has happened to me twice already today, once I was adding a new section to a talk page and couldn't save because the existing talk page had a blacklisted link it... like wtf?!) --kingboyk (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

    Header

    I put the header in a template to reduce size of this request page and included MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/Indicators which is loosly based off of RCU's indicators.--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

    Google "I'm feeling lucky"

    Would the following regexes work?

    • \bgoogle.com/search?.*&btnI
    • \bgoogle.com/search?btnI

    —Random832 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Blacklist logging

    {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}} (replacing '0' with the correct oldid shown here).
    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) 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Categories: