Talk:Spam blacklist: Difference between revisions
Billinghurst (talk | contribs) unsigned |
Billinghurst (talk | contribs) {{linksummary}} |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
=== Link shorteners === |
=== Link shorteners === |
||
{{LinkSummary|goo.gl}} |
|||
{{LinkSummary|bit.ly}} |
|||
{{LinkSummary|sh.st}} |
|||
Link shorteners, such as `goo.gl` `bit.ly` `sh.st` could be abused. [[User:Finnh54|Finnh54]] ([[User talk:Finnh54|talk]]) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
Link shorteners, such as `goo.gl` `bit.ly` `sh.st` could be abused. [[User:Finnh54|Finnh54]] ([[User talk:Finnh54|talk]]) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:37, 23 February 2021
- Proposed additions
- Please provide evidence of spamming on several wikis. Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist. Exceptions include malicious domains and URL redirector/shortener services. Please follow this format. Please check back after submitting your report, there could be questions regarding your request.
- Proposed removals
- Please check our list of requests which repeatedly get declined. Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. Please consider whether requesting whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use is more appropriate - that is very often the case.
- Other discussion
- Troubleshooting and problems - If there is an error in the blacklist (i.e. a regex error) which is causing problems, please raise the issue here.
- Discussion - Meta-discussion concerning the operation of the blacklist and related pages, and communication among the spam blacklist team.
- #wikimedia-external-linksconnect - Real-time IRC chat for co-ordination of activities related to maintenance of the blacklist.
- Whitelists
There is no global whitelist, so if you are seeking a whitelisting of a url at a wiki then please address such matters via use of the respectiveMediawiki talk:Spam-whitelistpage at that wiki, and you should consider the use of the template {{edit protected}} or its local equivalent to get attention to your edit.
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. This leaves a signature and timestamp so conversations are easier to follow.
Completed requests are marked as {{added}}/{{removed}} or {{declined}}, and are generally archived quickly. Additions and removals are logged · current log 2024/06.
- Information
- List of all projects
- Overviews
- Reports
- Wikimedia Embassy
- Project portals
- Country portals
- Tools
- Spam blacklist
- Title blacklist
- Email blacklist
- Rename blacklist
- Closure of wikis
- Interwiki map
- Requests
- Permissions
- Bot flags
- New languages
- New projects
- Username changes
- Translations
- Speedy deletions
- snippet for logging
- {{sbl-log|21144929#{{subst:anchorencode:SectionNameHere}}}}
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 15 days.
|
Proposed additions
|
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (example.com, not http://www.example.com). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived. |
qr.ae
qr.ae
Redirect service for:
quora.com
URL shortener for Quora. There are some usages on English wiki, and looks like a handful in the top 20, enough to stop it early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Ravensfire: Question, is it being abused, or is it a domain where we have had abuse? Typically where they are non-dangerous and dedicated redirects they have been left alone, eg. Washington Post. Is there a requirement to focus people through the main domain name for continuity or consistency. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I hear you, finding the balance is always the fun thing. I am not adverse to doing it as required, though would want to see a consensus to do so, rather than based on a single request. I will leave it open and see what appears over the next while. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I haven't seen anything significant. About the only potentially harmful use would be if specific Quora pages were blacklisted, this would be a work-around, similar to youtu.be. Actual harm right now, I don't see any. I guess my habit is to list shorteners when I see them, especially if they are generic. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst and Ravensfire: Just as a comment: quora.com is listed at en:WP:RSP as 'generally unreliable', which generally means that we check and often remove references to that. It appears that en.wikipedia currently has only ~1000 references to quora That housekeeping becomes easier if we do not allow for the (albeit dedicated) redirect to the site.
- Now, with https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-words-in-English-which-are-synonyms-but-have-separate-ancient-Greek-and-Latin-origin-and-the-Latin-word-is-not-etymologically-derivative-of-the-older-ancient-Greek you know where you get, with https://qr.ae/pNyjiF you don't even have a clue. That is another reason not to use redirect sites .. they are unclear/opaque, easily 'spoofed', even if they are 'the same', not disallowed (and I would even for a generally reliable and highly used source suggest that we do not do that). I would at least encourage to just blacklist obscuring dedicated redirect sites if there are reasons to minimize the link already (but I would be more in favour to have a bot enforced expansion of any links that are not redirecting to blacklisted/revertlisted domains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Link shorteners
goo.gl
bit.ly
sh.st
Link shorteners, such as `goo.gl` `bit.ly` `sh.st` could be abused. Finnh54 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Proposed additions (Bot reported)
|
|
This section is for domains which have been added to multiple wikis as observed by a bot.
These are automated reports, please check the records and the link thoroughly, it may report good links! For some more info, see Spam blacklist/Help#COIBot_reports. Reports will automatically be archived by the bot when they get stale (less than 5 links reported, which have not been edited in the last 7 days, and where the last editor is COIBot).
|
COIBot
The LinkWatchers report domains meeting the following criteria:
- When a user mainly adds this link, and the link has not been used too much, and this user adds the link to more than 2 wikis
- When a user mainly adds links on one server, and links on the server have not been used too much, and this user adds the links to more than 2 wikis
- If ALL links are added by IPs, and the link is added to more than 1 wiki
- If a small range of IPs have a preference for this link (but it may also have been added by other users), and the link is added to more than 1 wiki.
COIBot's currently open XWiki reports
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proposed removals
|
|
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section.
Remember to provide the specific domain blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as See also recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. Notes:
|
casino.ru
casino.ru
As it was mentioned in Talk:Spam blacklist this domain was blacklisted because: ‘Spammed by numerous IPs on Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias. --Mercy 15:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)’. I found this site useful for gambling articles. There are original interviews, articles and news. F.e. Gambling in Ukraine – the article in english is poor and need a lot of work and references from native speaker’s sites will be good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_token https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_Macau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_law
- Sort of an EP per User talk:SmurFF2020. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment Keen to defer to en for local whitelisting though, as globally there is still some undesired impact, @Ohnoitsjamie: is it possible to whitelist locally, yes, it cannot be removed from en blacklist as it's on meta but there is a possibility of using local whitelist. I am uncomfortable to remove it globally per just some pages in one wiki needing it as it's clearly spammy (and true on ru/uk wp) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @SmurFF2020: Best that you ask at w:mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist and ask for local whitelisting. Asking there will create a local record and enable a local conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I see no reason to remove it globally. The user who requested removing it from the en blacklist has no edits there; we rarely whitelist for new users, as it usually suggest the strong possibility of a WP:COI. Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @SmurFF2020: Best that you ask at w:mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist and ask for local whitelisting. Asking there will create a local record and enable a local conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @SmurFF2020:
Declined Deferred to w:en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelistCamouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
france-voyage.com
france-voyage.com
I'm one of the administrator of france-voyage.com. We received today a request from a user saying france-voyage.com is blacklisted on Wikipedia. I don't know if this is the right place to fix this issue, and I'm not sure what you need to solve the problem. Here is the message of the user (I can provide the email contact if necessary):
Translated message: Coming across an article containing the word "estacade" which I didn't know the meaning of, I searched Wikipedia and found this article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estacade - As often when it happens to me, I look a little further in the details than what the article says, and I find in the paragraph "Others" of this article a line which refers to the estacade de Saint-Jean-de-Monts, but without any details. Wanting to know more, I search on the internet (using the Qwant engine) and find your interesting article on this Saint-Jean-de-Monts here: https://www.france -voyage.com/villes-villages/saint-jean-de-monts-34110/estacade-34130.htm - As a Wikipedia contributor, I'm trying to include your page as a reference at the end of the line, as we can do with an article in Le Figaro or an internet page. But IMPOSSIBLE because Wikipedia detects a "global black link" or "local" there. I do not know exactly what that means, (this is the first time that I have had this red banner that opens when I want to publish my modification) but as your site seems serious to me, I think that your managers should contact the French managers in Paris at Wikipedia to resolve the problem. I'm at the origin of the 2 notes at the end of the line concerning this estacade at Saint-Jean-de-Monts.
Original message: Tombant sur un article contenant le mot "estacade" dont ne je connaissais pas le sens, j'ai cherché sur Wikipedia et ai trouvé cet article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estacade - Comme souvent lorsque ça m'arrive, je cherche encore un peu plus loin dans les détails que ce que l'article dit, et je trouve dans le paragraphe "Autres" de cet article une ligne qui référence l'estacade de Saint-Jean-de-Monts, mais sans aucun détail. Voulant en savoir plus, je cherche sur internet (par le moteur de Qwant) et trouve votre intéressant article sur cette estacade de Saint-Jean-de-Monts ici : https://www.france -voyage.com/villes-villages/saint-jean-de-monts-34110/estacade-34130.htm - Contributrice ancienne de Wikipedia, je cherche donc à inclure votre page en référence en bout de ligne, comme on peut le faire d'un article du Figaro ou d'une page internet. Mais IMPOSSIBLE car Wikipedia y détecte un "lien noir global" ou "local" . J'ignore précisément ce que ça signifie, (c'est la première fois que cela m'arrive d'avoir ce bandeau rouge qui s'ouvre au moment où je veux publier ma modification) mais comme votre site me semble sérieux, je pense que vos responsables devraient prendre contact avec les responsables français à Paris de Wikipedia pour régler le problème. C'est moi qui suis à l'origine des 2 notes du bout de la ligne concernant cette estacade de Saint-Jean-de-Monts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.167.220 (talk)
- Context for the blacklisting: User:COIBot/XWiki/france-voyage.com#Discussion (from 2008). Courtesy ping to Beetstra, since you're the only one still around from that discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not certain that the site would be seen as a reliable source and require removal from global blacklist. I would suggest that it would be worthwhile enquiring at
Defer to w:fr:Mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist and see if they will whitelist it for use. Remembering that the wikipedias are encyclopaedias, not travel sites. I would have thought that it would be one that could be used at Voyages, though I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of the site to make any big call. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC) - I am with billinghurst here. This seems like a singular use, one link now for one page on fr.wikipedia. I would indeed discuss this on fr.wikipedia and see whether this one link, or the whole site, should be whitelisted. I note that, in 13 odd years, there has not been a single request for a whitelist on en.wikipedia.
- @Marie-Walt:, as you tried to add this link, could you please comment on the use of the link? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst:, France-Voyage.com is a guide with a dedicated team visiting all sites of interest in France and writing unique articles. All official institutions in the country work on it since 2003. Content is always verified before publication. This website is considered as one of the most reliable source for tourism information in France, and is available in 10 languages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.167.220 (talk)
- We are still an encyclopaedia. not a tourist site; have specificity about what are reliable source, and we will be guided by French Wikipedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- France-Voyage.com is as reliable as some other travel sources mentioned on Wikipedia such as petitfute, citizeum, or lonelyplanet. There are even numerous references to booking.com. Several Wikipedians mentioned they used France-Voyage.com as a source to write articles on Wikipedia, but the references are not specified because of this very old entry in the global blacklist dating back from 2008.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.167.220 (talk)
- We are managing the situation where this domain was considered "spammed" at wikipedias to the point that it was requested to be blacklisted, especially due to the query about it being a reliable source. Further, the wikis have guidance on what to do with unreliable sources, so if you are seeing examples for consideration, then please use that process to have them removed. Pointing to other examples of use of unreliable sources in an encyclopaedia is not the way to win this argument; you have been directed where to argue your case. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- 81.185.167.220 that material on your site is checked by you does not make it reliable (see en:WP:RS), and there is a large difference between presenting the truth and being a reliable source.
- Not certain that the site would be seen as a reliable source and require removal from global blacklist. I would suggest that it would be worthwhile enquiring at
- That France-Voyage.com is 'as reliable as some other travel sources mentioned in Wikipedia' is not a fair comparison. First, maybe they are not reliable either and should not be used as they are, or they are used in a specific way. Secondly, and probably the biggest difference, is that the other sites were not spammed. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why our domain was considered "spammed", since we as a company never practiced this. We might have been attacked long time ago by a competitor that managed to add our domain to the global blacklist in 2008. It seems now impossible to get removed from there. Even if several Wikipedians use our content as a source without referencing it, and even if other users requested removal like on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2013-02 - Directing this request to French Wikipedia doesn't seems appropriate either since 50% of our audience is outside France and our content is in 10 languages. The blacklist removal request rejected in 2013 was made by a german user. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.162.255 (talk)
- Adding to the spam list is not about punishment, it is instead about restriction where the links are not required, or are out of scope.
You have been directed to frWP as that is where you were wishing for the link to be added. At this time, we have provided you with a solution to start your conversation with a local wiki about the use case, you can follow that suggestion or not—no skin off my nose.
The explanations above would be said to be our thoughts of how the community could assess any request, and was provided as thinking material for your whitelist request. Now you are expressing disapproval of our guidance and are expecting us to remove a community requested blacklisting of the site that you represent. Seems that you are neither listening nor understanding the situation [feel the room!] and you are too wrapped up in your own site, your privilege, and your conflict of interest; you have stopped representing an editor, you are not presenting the best value, or best sources for the encyclopaedias. I feel that the conversation is at an end, you have been given our advice on how to progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Adding to the spam list is not about punishment, it is instead about restriction where the links are not required, or are out of scope.
Discussion
|
|
This section is for discussion of Spam blacklist issues among other users. |