Misplaced Pages

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 05:17, 27 January 2013 editHu12 (talk | contribs)91,877 edits →Movie Review Intelligence: +← Previous edit Revision as of 12:36, 28 January 2013 edit undoDravidianhero (talk | contribs)3,762 edits →Proposed removalsNext edit →
Line 250: Line 250:
::This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. When a request for removal becomes attempts to ] with every editor vexatiously, despite clear evidence of abuse and multiple statements of policy by experienced independent editors and administrators above, then continuing to consider this request is no longer reasonable and a misuse of this MediaWiki page. avoiceformen.com is a blog/forum/wiki which '''''fails''''' Wikipedias inclusion requirements of the ], ] and ] guidelines. Misplaced Pages policy is quite clear - as such many links do not belong here, nor is Misplaced Pages obligated to host them. {{declined}} (x4) and Closing discussion. --] (]) 21:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC) ::This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. When a request for removal becomes attempts to ] with every editor vexatiously, despite clear evidence of abuse and multiple statements of policy by experienced independent editors and administrators above, then continuing to consider this request is no longer reasonable and a misuse of this MediaWiki page. avoiceformen.com is a blog/forum/wiki which '''''fails''''' Wikipedias inclusion requirements of the ], ] and ] guidelines. Misplaced Pages policy is quite clear - as such many links do not belong here, nor is Misplaced Pages obligated to host them. {{declined}} (x4) and Closing discussion. --] (]) 21:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
{{report bottom}} {{report bottom}}

== Galatta.com ==
{{Link summary|galatta.com}}
I don't know, who blacklisted it and which reason was given to blacklist the site, possibly malware or so? The website is one of the oldest existing film magazines in India and it would be utilized as a reliable source. I discussed a different matter on my talkpage and both colleagues were of the same opinion for de-blacklisting, if there is no problem with malware of course.--] (]) 12:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


=Completed Proposed removals= =Completed Proposed removals=

Revision as of 12:36, 28 January 2013

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 – 535334256 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    Archives


    Proposed additions

    Instructions for proposed additions
    1. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.
    2. Please only use the basic URL – example.com , not https://www.example.com.
    3. Consider informing editors whose actions are discussed here.
    4. Please use the following templates:
    {{IP summary}} – to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
    {{IP summary|127.0.0.1}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    {{User summary}} – to report registered users suspected of spamming:
    {{User summary|Jimbo Wales}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    {{Link summary}} – to report spam domains:
    {{Link summary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    Do not include the "http://www." portion of a URL inside this template, nor anything behind the domain name. Including this template will give tools to investigate the domain, and will result in COIBot refreshing the link-report. ('COIBot')
    {{BLRequestRegex}} - to suggest more complex regex filters beyond basic domain URLs
    {{BLRequestLink}} - to suggest specific links to be blacklisted
    Please provide diffs ( e.g. ] ) to show that there has been spamming!
    Completed requests should be marked with {{done}}, {{not done}}, or another appropriate indicator, and then archived.

    save-sara-tancredi.org

    While it is purported to be an online petition for the Prison Break character Sara Tancredi to return to the show's fourth season, it is nothing but an iPad spam. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

    Anybody home? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
     Additional information needed Evidence of Abuse?--Hu12 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    I am uncertain whether you would consider this abuse, but it was introduced within the text of the article about Sarah Wayne Callies, with no hyperlink (this is me removing it). Is there a way to prevent the text from being entered into an edit altogether? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see any valid reason for blacklisting here, thanks Not done--Hu12 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


    oDesk

    Multiple users spam link their user pages with links to this site. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 23:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

    cloudways.com

    couldways.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

    39.48.89.149 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    39.48.58.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    202.143.126.157 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    210.2.135.41 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    There has been a steady campaign since summer 2012 to add this site to various articles, often those of competitors, most recently today. Jojalozzo 21:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

    plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    heightincreasinginsoles.net

    Previous incidents
    Sites spammed
    Spammers

    86.142.76.14 felt the need to post this. MER-C 13:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    Register-her.com

    register-her.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

    Attack site listing women who have been targeted as enemies of men by the men's rights movement. The domain has been used to add attack text to the BLP Gina Barreca by 72.219.29.82 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). I see no useful purpose for this domain; it is a terrible attack site. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

    auditiondate.in

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

    User Iamrakeshh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has been adding links to his own website, I have reverted them and asked him not to re-add, but he has added them back again. LightGreenApple talk to me 06:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

    onelittlemouse.narod.ru

    onelittlemouse.narod.ru: 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

    Fake site, attack page; diff and many others from "beatles troll". May be abuse filter will be useful here too. OneLittleMouse (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

    wysinger.homestead.com

    wysinger.homestead.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

    Massive copyvio host. Moonriddengirl concurs. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

    Completed Proposed additions

    Proposed removals

    Use this section to request that a URL be unlisted. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.

    Requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined. Otherwise, follow these steps to post a properly-formatted request:

    • Familiarize yourself with the reasons why a site was blacklisted. Look at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log to see who blacklisted the link and when, and the reason given for blacklisting.
    • At the beginning of your request, include the domain in a {{link summary}} template (remove the http:// and www from the domain). This provides tools to find more information on the domain. For example, * {{Link summary|example.com}} results in:
    • When previewing your post with an included {{link summary}}, you will find links to a COIBot-report ('COIBot'), linksearches on en ('Linksearch en'), and tracked discussions ('tracked' and 'advanced'). If the log did not provide sufficient information on why a link was blacklisted, these links often yield more information.
    • Explain how the link can be useful on Misplaced Pages. Referencing a discussion at WP:RSN can be helpful.
    • Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore.
      • The bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Misplaced Pages, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped.

    Providing this information often helps in a faster handling of the request.

    Once you have added your request, please check back here from time to time to get the outcome or to answer any additional questions. We will not email you or otherwise notify you about your request, and if no answer is received to a question, the request will be considered abandoned.

    Administrators: Completed requests should be marked with {{done}}, {{not done}}, or another appropriate indicator, then archived.

    gematria

    Two sites which have been probably the first Online Gematria Calculators www.c2kb.com/gematria and www.gematrix.org are in the black list. I believe a few years ago someone have tried to add them to Misplaced Pages in a brutal way and this is why they were black listed. There is no reason to black list them now. Both sites gives accurate Gematria results and very popular. Never the less the links have been removed maliciously by other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.145.86 (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

    Not a valid reason for removal, nor would removing restricted URLS be in any way considered malicious. Not done. Please refrain from attempting to add them, as you did on he.wikipedia.org, thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

    LookChem

    This site provides accurate information about chemicals, and it is also a buyer site. The basic information added to[REDACTED] and cited as it would be excellent additions. Please consider my opinion that de-listing it would be a very godo contribution to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.112.17 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

    no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

    Movie Review Intelligence

    This domain was blacklisted in 2010 because people involved with the website sought to solicit it across film articles on Misplaced Pages. Recently, I was researching about film review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, both of which are well-referenced). I saw that Movie Review Intelligence has gained prominence as seen here, and I think we should reconsider its blacklisting. (I started a discussion about this website and Movie Review Query Engine here.) I was fine with the blacklisting at the time, but I think it has built credibility since then. The aforementioned link indicates it as a reliable source to go with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and we should allow it to be referenced in film articles. Whether or not there is a consensus to use it in a widespread matter is yet to be determined, but I think this de-listing is a necessary first step. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

    "Movie Review Intelligence is a review aggregator website which collates and analyses movie reviews.". Fails Wikipedias inclusion requirements of our External Links policy no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

    Hu12, as another admin who is active on this page, I must say I don't believe it's so simple. Had I seen this request before you answered it, I'd have given a different response. We have repeatedly stated on this page that we consider seriously de-listing requests from trusted, high-volume contributors. Erik certainly qualifies in that regard, so I believe this request deserves serious and thoughtful consideration.

    I believe WP:ELNO doesn't apply as a rationale for declining this request. The intent of WP:ELNO #9 is to prohibit linking to aggregator sites that simply re-publish content from elsewhere. Such sites add no value to the original source. Those sites should not be used because it's preferable to use the original source.

    However, Misplaced Pages widely cites Rotten Tomatoes, arguably an aggregator site, but with a major difference: The point of their "aggregation" isn't to serve as a tertiary source for reviews that we could cite elsewhere, but rather they publish statistics about reviewer consensus toward a particular film. Because the reviewers they aggregate are considered reliable sources individually, the statistical analyses published by Rotten Tomatoes is also considered reliable for the purpose of citing overall reviewer consensus.

    That is why we cite Rotten Tomatoes, and that is also the reason why Erik wants to cite Movie Review Intelligence — for the purpose of referencing statistics published by that source.

    Movie Review Intelligence was blacklisted due to abusive activity. It's irrelevant how respected or prominent the site has become. The real question we should consider is: Will removing the site from the blacklist result in a resumption of disruptive activity? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

    I would be happy to monitor for such abuse, though I doubt it will happen after so long. I'm no fan of linkspam and have done my share of combating it (as seen on this old user page: User:Erik/Linkspam). In addition, if there are any issues with too much solicitation, I can bring the issue up with WT:FILM, which is a pretty active forum. If there are still concerns about the reliability of the website, I can re-post the sources I shared on Hu12's talk page. I also think that the references at Movie Review Intelligence (New York Times, Los Angeles Times) further indicate its reliability. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    Here are a couple of interactions with the founder of the website: 1 and 2. For what it's worth, I came to revisit this blacklisting because I wanted to discuss film aggregator websites beyond Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as seen here. I realized that MRI was blacklisted, so I was following up with it so there could be a proper discussion about such websites. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    Any perceived "prominence" elsewhere is irrelevant resulting from the abuse activity (5 sock puppet accounts 4 IP's, excessive spam-linking, cite-spamming and promotion) that took place here on Misplaced Pages. With that being said, WP:ELNO #9 is a large considering factor, perhaps not strictly as defined, but certainly applies due to the nature of how MRI functions and operates. Movie Review Intelligence(MRI) is simply a site aggregating other websites content to produce their own "Self-published material" and original research. To clarify, because MRI "aggregates" other website reviews to produce their "own content", they have no control over their "own content", which is constantly changing. This becomes problematic as any statistics, consensus, analyses or score published by MRI are merely temporary and not reliable for a useful period of time (failing ELNO#16). This is position is also supported by the requestor;
    "review aggregators help reflect the consensus...but this does not necessarily mean they are permanent....A selection of scores serves as the lead-in for newer films. As time goes on, they are less necessary...as transitional references" --Erik 25 August 2010
    More importantly, there is valid concern for continued abuse. A year after the site had been blacklisted, the owner returned for the sole purpose of continued promotion of himself and his site, for example by pushing for an article to be created about MRI. I suspect, that if the site is unblocked the abuse will resume, as demonstrated by previous patterns in this case. This not a typical d-listing request as it has the potential to affect a massive amount of Misplaced Pages article related to film, not just a few. FYI, Rotten Tomatoes currently has 17,000 links on Misplaced Pages and Metacritic has 16,000. Erik's offer to "monitor" for abuse is well intentioned, however he cannot prevent, nor guarantee against future abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    WP:ELNO #9 does not apply even in spirit. Movie Review Intelligence, like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, is staffed. There's not an automatic aggregation like the examples in #9. The staff retrieves the reviews and assess each one; #9 refers entirely to blind collecting. And how can you claim that WP:OR even applies here, to MRI? It is not an applicable policy at all because there is no original content on the editors' part being added. In addition, the permanence of such websites' scores will depend on the film. The most prominent films will be covered in retrospect, and that retrospective coverage is best used to describe the contemporary critical reception to a film. Ideally, we want to replace such aggregate scores with references to such coverage, but this is not possible for many run-of-the-mill films.
    Your concern about continued abuse is valid, but we are talking years ago. In addition, evidence I've cited shows that it is reliable. How do we balance making a reliable source available for general use with preventing said source from being abused? Is this not a problem with any source? For example, a few months ago, someone tried to refspam Film Comment, but I worked with an admin to undo that spamming and to get the offender blocked. Film Comment is still used and available to use. The issue is murkier with MRI because there was an argument against reliability at the time, but I think the situation is different now and that we need to reevaluate the balance, especially under our banner of assuming good faith years later. We cannot truly tell if MRI would have been referenced independently because it has been blacklisted all this time, but a similar (and a little lesser known) website, Movie Review Query Engine, has been referenced. That is why I want to make MRI available to use. I want to assume good faith, and I am capable of monitoring with tools like Special:Linksearch. Otherwise, when is it appropriate to de-list? Another few years? A decade? Never? How long do we maintain this punishment? When does the balance tilt toward making a reliable source available for general use? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    For the benefit of others here and for some perspective, these are very specific niche sites. Movie Review Intelligence is nowhere near Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, David A. Gross (owner) even admits that fact; "The other sites are giants...”. Metacritic.com (owned by CBS Interactive, Inc.) RottenTomatoes.com (owned by Warner Bros/flixster inc) both have been around since about 2000. Movie Review Intelligence, on the other hand, is new (2009) and a personal website run by an individual. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic has a staff which reads reviews and decides whether they're positive or negative, where as "Anybody ...even someone with no previous experience – would be considered especially important in Movie Review Intelligence's formula. I don't think this site meets the Verifiability Policy's section on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material". Roger Ebert, the Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic for the Chicago Sun-Times isn't even convinced of the value of aggregated rankings;
    "People quote the Tomato Meter, But what does it really mean?" --Roger Ebert
    Either way, any statistics, consensus, analyses or score published by MRI are merely temporary and not reliable for a useful period of time (failing ELNO#16). Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic already exist on wikipedia, however that fact doesn't prove that Movie Review Intelligence should also exist. Currently, Rotten Tomatoes currently has 17,000 links on Misplaced Pages and Metacritic has 16,000, this is an unmanageable amount of links to "monitor", even with a bot. I've stricken my decline marked above for now, so this can be discussed, because this is essentially a request to link farm Misplaced Pages en mass. Perhaps the merit of all "aggregated rankings" sites should be reconsidered. While I am not opposed to white-listing where appropriate, I'm not convinced MRI site is reliable enough or brings much value to Misplaced Pages. --Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

    LMGTFY

    lmgtfy.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

    LMTGFY ("Let me Google that for you"; http://lmgtfy(dot)com) is a handy website used to assist people too lazy to use Google, and is also a useful tool to shorten Google searches. Compare:

    I don't see how LMGTFY can be used maliciously in any way - it is not a hosting site (i.e. cannot be used for spam), and it is not a URL redirector/shortener (i.e. cannot be used for spam). Is there any reason why the website is blacklisted? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    It is possible to use it as a workaround to get (only) the result you want (hence, only the spam-result), moreover, google.com/search?q=copyright+law+in+Australia (link) does it as well, as well as {{google|copyright law in Australia}} (copyright law in Australia). There is no need to use lmgtfy anyway (there is hardly any use for google searches in mainspace, they are not suitable as a reference, and should not be used as an external link since the result is not 'stable' in any form). Finally, this is blacklisted on meta, not here. I hope this explains and helps. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 08:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    I was thinking more of using them on talk pages, to explain things, and not actually use the links within mainspace. But yes, I understand your points. Though, given that the site itself does no harm, and the purpose of the spam blacklist is to prevent malicious or disruptive use of links, is the block necessary? I'll ask around on meta. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    I still don't see the use of it when there are better and more clear links to google results. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 06:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


    Silk Road (marketplace)

    silkroadvb5piz3r.onion: 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

    First of all let me say to anybody not familiar with .onion links, this certainly does look like a spam link but it is not. The above link is the url for an online, anonymous marketplace which is only accessible with a special browser called the Tor Browser. The anonymity of the marketplace makes it a useful place to buy and sell drugs, but that isn't the only use for it. Please take a look at Silk_Road_(marketplace) . Here is the blacklist log listing blocking this link:

    \bsilkroad.*\.onion\b # Phishing site with changing url (i.e. silkroadfqmteec4.onion)

    The marketplace is not a phishing site. Since it's difficult to tell when the link is incorrect, malicious editors were replacing the correct link with phishing links so that they could withdraw the money deposited into their victims' marketplace accounts. I would suggest some kind of page protection instead of blocking everything, including the legitimate link.

    This link is useful because there are legal purposes for the Silk Road marketplace. As in the case of ThePirateBay, whose article links to the site, it is up to users to make the best of use of the information Misplaced Pages provides. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view

    A discussion took place on the administrator's noticeboard preceding this link's blacklisting, but it explicitly suggested ignoring the rules to blacklist the link. Unfortunately I can't find it on the noticeboard anymore. The primary argument used was that Misplaced Pages has no interest promoting illegal activity. However I would point out two things: 1. Misplaced Pages also doesn't have an interest in condemning it. 2. The link is Misplaced Pages:ELOFFICIAL and not Misplaced Pages:ELNEVER

    146.115.137.225 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

    no Declined. However the abuse is characterized, it correctly led to a blacklisting. Furthermore, the .onion top level domain is not an official TLD, and requires special software to access those sites. WP:ELNO specifically says links requiring special software to view are to be avoided. I see no reason to de-list this domain. In fact, I would advocate all of *.onion be blacklisted, for the same reason that all of *.co.cc is blacklisted on meta. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response Amatulić. As I understand the need for special software is recommended against but it's not a sufficient condition for blacklisting, and nor is being a non-ICANN TLD. As I said before, the link I posted above is not a phishing link, and frankly User:XLinkBot would be a better fix for the abuse than the Blacklist. I'm not familiar with the *.co.cc blacklist reasoning and couldn't find anything on the subject; could you post a link? 128.84.126.85 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    Dear anonymous. IF there is ONE single, fixed, clear .onion account for silkroad (e.g. silkroad.onion) then we could consider something. As this does not seem to be the case (it seems to be changing .. and it has the additional 'code' vb5piz3r added to it, which .. makes me think that this is not the official .onion site. Should this not simply be 'silkroad.onion'?).
    For me, .onion should be blanket blacklisted (the abuse and the possibility for abuse is, obviously, too broad), and then for specific pages one specific link should be whitelisted. Note that actually providing a link is a mere service, there is no necessity for it in any way. I think that this might be a case for whitelisting this specific link, here no Declined. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 08:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    Hi Beetstra (public), thanks a lot for your response. The link I posted is the ONE link that works. It's the only link that works, and it doesn't change. The changing of the link on the Silk Road article was due to malicious users putting up phishing sites to replace the correct link. The reason it has the gibberish after the 'silkroad' part is related to the security controls inherent to Tor's anonymizing technology. It's not possible to make a link which is just 'silkroad.onion'. Take a look at .onion for more info about this. I really like your idea of blanket blacklist and specific link whitelisting. Unfortunately, the gibberish in all .onion links makes users susceptible to phishing sites no matter where they on the web they look for a link. That's why I think it's important that Misplaced Pages puts up and maintains the correct link, it gives correct information that users can trust when no other site can really do this. 128.84.126.26 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    That makes two of us admins in favor of blacklisting all of *.onion. First of all, as I said earlier, WP:ELNO suggests that those links have no business being on Misplaced Pages due to the need for special software. Second, the entire *.onion TLD is a notorious source of illegal material, phishing, and what not. The benefits to blacklisting outweigh the benefits to keeping it unlisted.
    At the moment, only silkroad*.onion is listed. If you want to white-list a specific case of that is guaranteed to work, then  Defer to Whitelist for such requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

    finance.mapsofworld.com

    This is in follow up of a request at the Help Desk by Toshio Yamaguchi. Back in October 2007, two IPs and two registered editors were spamming mapsofworld.com into Misplaced Pages and that generated Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/mapsofworld.com. That resulted in User:Beetstra adding mapsofworld.com to the black list 09:34, 16 October 2007.. As noted in 2008 here, "somebody unrelated to mapsofworld.com was persistently adding links for that and other sites to many articles." Given that occured over five years ago, I think the reasons for the black list no longer exist. Please consider removing http://finance.mapsofworld.com/ from the black list. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

    finance.mapsofworld.com isn't specifically blacklisted. All of mapsofworld.com is listed, as well as many other mapsof*.com sites. We could possibly add the subdomain finance.mapsofworld.com to the whitelist, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


    avoiceformen.com

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

    Men's rights are a topic of increasing interest, and Avoiceformen is the leading site on the topic. The blacklist entry is completely bad as it:

    1. uses weasel words ("sneaky")
    2. alleges that citation is a form of vandalism
    3. alleges the site should be blacklisted because of vandalism causing links to the site to in fact link elsewhere
    4. unsupported claims "I cannot see that this website could even be considered a reliable source"

    It would be quite absurd to not cite a leading site on any given topic, and as avoiceformen is the leading site on its particular topic, it is only logical to de-blacklist it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestu (talk • contribs)


    I recommend no action here. The website could only be considered a "leading site" if it was run by a group of notable people or scholarly topic experts, but it is not. The closest it comes to naming its leaders is the mission statement which offers email contacts for "Paul" and "John". That is not the signature of a reliable website. There is no indication that this website is in any way important. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2012#avoiceformen.com says it all .. link hijacking etc. no Declined. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 13:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


    People are "notable" because they are noted. Clearly, they've met that criteria, by virtue of sheer size, traffic, and recognition. "Scholarly topic experts" means nothing because there is no associated realm of scholarship. Male rights is, after all, an emerging field. A source need not be scholarly if it is relevant and does not claim to be scholarly.

    Very few websites offer direct contact information or the proper names of administrators, including Misplaced Pages itself. Trying to use the very common internet practice of first-name aliases to preseve personal anonymity as a smear against the site betrays the lack of any real case against it.

    How is the link hijacking case relevant? That was over a year ago, do we have evidence that the site in question was responsible, or that is a reason to keep the site on the blacklist? To say simply "link hijacking etc" seems to indicate there is no real case against the site itself. Aestu (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    You should really have a look at WP:V, WP:RS .. we do demand the highest quality sources.
    The owners of Misplaced Pages are known by full name .. not by alias.
    Well, it was clearly used to advocate / promote the site (link hijacking in order to traffic people to this site in stead of to the site that one thinks to go to - not just 'honest' additions to pages where it should be), and that is exactly relevant here, that is exactly one of the things that the spam blacklist has to prevent. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    The accusations still haven't been proven. Waving around a random link and accusing another poster of acting on the basis of ignorance does not change that and only underscores the lack of a case against the site. Do we know that those responsible for the edit and the reasons for it are applicable to any such information from the site? No? Then the entire argument is based on an unproven premise.

    The individual who nominated the site for the blacklist is an aggressive editor of ideologically opposed material. Therefore, it seems most likely that the accusation was ideological in nature. No other individuals other than this one user have found fault with the site. Aestu (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    The link hijacking has been proven, so I don't know what you are talking about there. And you say 'a source need not be scholarly if it is relevant and does not claim to be scholarly' - well, it needs to be scholarly, and if it already claims not to be scholarly, then it is certainly not the highest quality source, and hence not worth mentioning on Misplaced Pages. And no, I did not argue that those responsible for the edits were affiliated (and actually, whether they are affiliated or not does not matter at all; and people not affiliated with a site can still promote or advocate it), what I do know is that the editors responsible for those edits were also responsible for the disruption caused by the edits, and that is what the spam blacklist is preventing now. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 14:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    No, a source does not need to be scholarly - WP:V itself says so, so I am curious why you are arguing against site policy? Blogs and non-academic sources qualify, "particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications". AVoiceForMen has appeared on the NYT and CBS so clearly that criteria has been met.

    The evidence suggests that the questionable edits were made not by affiliates of that site but by ideologically opposed opponents looking to smear it.

    Let's boil this down. Beetstra, what criteria for deblacklisting do you feel is not being met? And why are you claiming the policy says something other than it clearly does? Aestu (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    no Declined As Beetstra noted, this site does not have the appearance of a reputable source. No amount of wikilawyering (i.e., attacking the blacklister as if you're hoping to get this "dismissed on procedural grounds") is going to convince me that this site meets WP:RS or is otherwise useful to the project. OhNoitsJamie 15:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    No legal terminology or procedure was used. You are using the term "wikilawyering" as an insult without any proper justification, and trying to attack a contributor for properly employing the cited Misplaced Pages regulations.

    "No amount". In other words, you refuse to examine the issue objectively; it doesn't matter what the evidence is.

    The following would seem to apply:

    "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their fact and principle marshaling opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere."

    ]

    "Does not have the appearance". Your argument is entirely semantic in nature. No proof, no argument; just the semantic ad hominem of "not reputable". Why? The site meets the criteria specified in WP:V and WP:RS - it has appeared in mainstream publications, is not self-cited, and makes no extraordinary claims - so if you feel otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

    Abuse of the insult "wikilawyer" to defend a lack of factual basis for a blacklist decision corroborates the appearance of bias. So we come back to the question: do you have a non-semantic basis to claim the site is not credible, when, in fact, it appears highly credible, having appeared in mainstream publications, and contains an abundance of diverse contributors?

    Aestu (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    Let me make a counter point, the site has been forcefully inserted into Misplaced Pages against Misplaced Pages policy, as a result Wikipedian's where forced to blacklist the domain (something that isn't done casually). Now the burden of proof lays on you to prove that the site in question meets the inclusion criteria for Misplaced Pages. That threshold has not been met with your statements. No proof has been given that your site is a avoiceformen is the leading site, clear proof has not been established that your site is in fact reliable, well sourced, and professionally written at all. All we have are some vague statements by the owner of the site. I have seen other domain owners attempt to sell snow to an Eskimo for one reason or another. (For the record Eskimo's never need to buy snow.) The burden lays with the person wishing to include the material after the fact that it has been proven to be abusive. Werieth (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    First off, you're making this personal, which is bad form. You keep referring to Avoiceformen as "your site". It's not "my site". Please observe proper decorum and approach the issue in a non-personal manner.

    Second, the burden of proof has already been met. The site has been repeatedly cited by several mainstream publications. No good reason has been given by anyone why the site is good enough for CBS and the New York Times but not Misplaced Pages. Obviously, if it's good enough for CBS/NYT then it's good enough for Misplaced Pages unless a VERY good reason can be given why not.

    Third, you're throwing out a red herring by trying to associate a site with an anecdote about Eskimos and snow. It has nothing to do with the topic and suggests, again, efforts to blacklist the site in the absence of any objectively acceptable reason to do so. Aestu (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry for using the term "you", I must have had my links mixed up. I just did a basic search for avoiceformen in google. I checked the first 100 results (beyond that its insignificant) None of them where from a reliable source endorsing the site. In fact several results had some fairly strong words against the site, including suspicion of hate crimes. You are making claims about reliable sources using avoiceformen in their publications (CBS, New York Times) and I cannot find any proof of that. From what I have seen the site utterly and completely fails the definition of WP:RS. This isn't even taking into consideration the reason for the initial blacklisting (link hijacking and other abuse). Werieth (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    I just did a Google search avoiceformen (I have user indexing turned off). Site was first one up. Accusations are not guilt. Google itself is a poor measure of relevance/credibility. You obviously didn't look very hard since the site's appearance on NYT/CBS is cited in the site's materials. Your claims are dishonest slurs and obviously biased. Objective, fact-based approaches to this issue are clearly necessary. Aestu (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    Request no Declined for the third time now. None of the discussion above addresses the reason for the blacklisting, therefore all of it is irrelevant to this page.  Defer to Whitelist to discuss white-listing specific pages on the avoiceformen site. We consider blacklist removal requests from trusted, high-volume editors, and the petitioner in this case meets neither qualification at this time. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. When a request for removal becomes attempts to "battle it out" with every editor vexatiously, despite clear evidence of abuse and multiple statements of policy by experienced independent editors and administrators above, then continuing to consider this request is no longer reasonable and a misuse of this MediaWiki page. avoiceformen.com is a blog/forum/wiki which fails Wikipedias inclusion requirements of the External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Misplaced Pages policy is quite clear - as such many links do not belong here, nor is Misplaced Pages obligated to host them. no Declined (x4) and Closing discussion. --Hu12 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    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.

    Galatta.com

    galatta.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 I don't know, who blacklisted it and which reason was given to blacklist the site, possibly malware or so? The website is one of the oldest existing film magazines in India and it would be utilized as a reliable source. I discussed a different matter on my talkpage and both colleagues were of the same opinion for de-blacklisting, if there is no problem with malware of course.--Dravidianhero (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

    Completed Proposed removals

    Troubleshooting and problems

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

    Duplicate entries

    The following entries are listed twice in the blacklist. One of the duplicates should be removed. 

    \b211manchesterfacts\.com\b
\b43jonesborofax\.com\b
\b50newyorkcityfacts\.com\b
\b51oxenfordfacts\.com\b
\b5berkeleyfacts\.com\b
\b77alexandriafacts\.com\b
\babsolutechinatours\.com\b
\ballsitesexcavations\.com\.au\b
\bbargainmailorder\.com\b
\bblacksonblondes\.com\b
\bboatville\.com\b
\bderbylimo\.com\b
\bfared\.com\b
\bfluoridealert\.org\b
\bfoxmotorcycle\.com\b
\bglobalizationautomation\.com\b
\bgramsrecipe\.com\b
\bhankville\.com\b
\binsidelouisville\.com\b
\bkompenz\.ru\b
\bnuibavi\.com\b
\bnu-tritionhealthfitness\.com\b
\brabbit-vibrators\.com\.au\b
\brufed\.com\b
\bsampleged\.com\b
\bscrewville\.com\b
\bthewhiteglovemover\.com\.au\b
\btijuanarxstore\.com\b
\bworldrugbyshop\.co\.uk\b
\byiser\.com\b

    —Psychonaut (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    On meta

    \baffiliatefuture\.com\b
\b67\.55\.108\.167\b
\bpillowholiday\.info\b
\bwanttoknow\.info\b
\bglobal-offensive-codes\.com\b
\bslinky\.me\b

    These are already on meta's blacklist. Werieth (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

    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[REDACTED] (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[REDACTED] 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

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


    Possible malware

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

    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)
    Categories:
    MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions Add topic