Talk:Spam blacklist: Difference between revisions
m spacing |
m + |
||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
::::#I'll have to ask more ifnormed people on that one (they'll complete below). Also, apart from the maintener, the only recourse is to write mails to over-blog's abuse address, not too successfully. |
::::#I'll have to ask more ifnormed people on that one (they'll complete below). Also, apart from the maintener, the only recourse is to write mails to over-blog's abuse address, not too successfully. |
||
::::[[User:=^^=|=^^=]] 17:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
::::[[User:=^^=|=^^=]] 17:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
Note I've re-added this pending further discussion in light of Darkoneko's statements above. Thanks — <b style="color:#309;">[[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]</b> | <sup>[[:b:en:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<span style="color:#309;">@en.wb</span>]]</sup> 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Troubleshooting and problems == |
== Troubleshooting and problems == |
||
Revision as of 17:46, 14 April 2009
- 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.
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 (search) quickly. Additions and removals are logged.
- 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-links - Real-time IRC chat for co-ordination of activities related to maintenance of the blacklist.
- 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|1459799#{{subst:anchorencode:SectionNameHere}}}}
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. |
facebook.com/l.php
facebook.com/l.php
URL redirector. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
cathlic-hierarchy.org
catholic-hierarchy.org
A post on my enWP talk page en:User talk:JzG raises quesitons about this domian, which appears to be all over some language projects. I checked it out a bit, it does not look to me to be an appropriate source, much of what is written has the look of personal essays. I don't know what action we can take here, but the request on my tallk page does seem to be made in good faith and to have merit as a call to action of some sort. JzG 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
URL redirectors
hugeurl.com
freakinghugeurl.com
From the enWP blacklist. Adding now as link redirectors. JzG 17:31, 14 April 2009 (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. The addition or removal of a domain from the blacklist is not a vote; please do not bold the first words in statements. |
aceshowbiz.com
aceshowbiz.com
See discussion at this wikipedia page. - Peregrine Fisher 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Also, could you post a note on my wikipedia talk page when you comment? I don' check meta very often. - Peregrine Fisher 20:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Due to past problems with excessive linking to this domain, I do not believe this request should be fulfilled. However, if you believe that links to this domain will enhance the content, you can request whitelisting of specific URLs for specific uses on w:en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
wikipedia.un.mythe.over-blog.com
wikipedia.un.mythe.over-blog.com
This is a critical blog, often excessive if not worse, against Wikipedia, mainly Wikipedia in French. There was a discussion yesterday at our "Village Pump" fr:Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/10_avril_2009#Blocage_automatique_des_pourriels_de_la_liste_noire where appeared an obvious majority approving the block of this site, with a few dissident voices, some from experienced Wikipedians.
This site has been blacklisted in 2007 by David Monniaux with comment "site spams tons of articles, policy and discussion pages with links to this blog" [1] ; as far as I remember this blacklisting has not been discussed here, though I discovered there was a discussion in 2007 on our sysop noticeboard : [2] (see section "Pages protégées pour pourriel"), again with a majority strongly in favour of blacklisting and with significant discordant voices.
Personally, I don't think there are really serious spamming problems, or the spamming problems in 2007 were local in time and linked to disruptive editors and did only marginally connect to the "Main" namespace. As can be seen for instance by the explanation given by Kropotkine_113 on our Village Pump, some other motives seem to have been implicit in this blacklisting ("parce qu'il diffame, insulte et traîne dans la boue des contributeurs, détourne des propos, manipule l'historique de ses commentaires pour faire régner la confusion").
Note that this site is obviously useless on "Main" namespace but could obviously be used on Talk pages, and is quite often indeed quoted on Talk pages by various Wikipedians who are forced by this blacklisting to give a non-clickable link (a few random examples here or there).
I should add that, again very personally, I think this blacklisting is unproductive : it does not forbid good faith editors to give a (non-clickable) link to this site on a Talk page when they find it useful, but it gives a bad image of "censorship". Since this censorship is unefficient the cool think to do would be to bring it to an end.
For all these reasons, I would appreciate an independant review of David Monniaux's decision by some Meta admin, ideally somebody reading French but not active on :fr Wikipedia.Touriste 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
A few additional facts which can help to make your decision :
- I have no relation to the blog whose delisting I query (except as a reader), and am (hopefully) a "trusted, high-volume editor" on :fr (sysop with several thousand edits) as suggested by the delisting rules ;
- I don't really assert that removing the blacklisting would be "in support of our projects" but rather than keeping it is counter-productive ;
- I took more time today to try to find out how often there had been spamming sprees towards wikipedia.un.mythe. I found only one, four months before blacklisting, indeed limited both in size and in time : [3] ;
- I checked throughout David.Monniaux contributions here and on fr and the state of his Talk pages (here and on :fr) before the date of blacklisting (May 30th 2007) to see if the question had been subject to debate. It does not seem to have been ; I simply noticed that roughly at the same time when he added wikipedia.un.mythe to the blacklist, DM erased a substantial list of external links in the Wikipedia namespace of :fr towards critical sites, including one to wikipedia.un.mythe : [4] ;
- If I don't miss something, this blacklisting seems not to have been logged. Touriste 16:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- My first take (though looking at this only briefly) is that the entry should be moved to frwiki's blacklist as there seems to be no concern about spamming elsewhere. It'd be up to the frwiki community to discuss whether to leave it blacklisted or not. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- It seems OK to me, a debate in French with editors knowing exactly what this blog is would be more reasonable - local blacklists did not exist when DM blacklisted this blog here, and no difficulty has been noticed there. If I get a green light here, I'll add it into local :fr blacklist, inform you that it is done and you'll remove it there ; debate will keep on on :fr you shall not have to bother reading hundreds of pages in French. Touriste 08:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good - just let us know when it's been added to frwiki & it'll be removed here. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's done [5], you can remove it from this meta-page now. Thanks ! Touriste 18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good - just let us know when it's been added to frwiki & it'll be removed here. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- It seems OK to me, a debate in French with editors knowing exactly what this blog is would be more reasonable - local blacklists did not exist when DM blacklisted this blog here, and no difficulty has been noticed there. If I get a green light here, I'll add it into local :fr blacklist, inform you that it is done and you'll remove it there ; debate will keep on on :fr you shall not have to bother reading hundreds of pages in French. Touriste 08:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Removed — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can't say I agree with this. Quoting this in talk pages is about as useful as quoting Wikipedia Watch or trash-sites like that.
- Also, from what I saw on the french discussion, almost everyone is against a de-blacklisting of any kind. It's far from "a few dissident voices".
- And to finish, Wikipedia isn't the only french project : at least, the french wikibooks/wikiversity/wiktionary have to be protected too.
- DarkoNeko 07:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Questions:
- Does this site attack individual editors
- Is this site a forum with postings from a number of different contributors or is it the project of one or two editors?
- What is the history of this site regarding breaching Wikipedia editors' privacy through "outing" (revealing editors' off-line, real world identities)? If this is a forum with multiple contributors and a Wikipedia editor is "outed", do the sysops quickly delete the post?
- I suggest checking other French projects (wiktionary, etc.) for links to this site. Also, any French-related languages (Occitan, etc.)
- --A. B. (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- yes. Not mainly in the posts themselves but in the comments (posted by banned trolls and the maintener faking another identity).
- It's a blog, but the "comments" system could fit your description of a forum (because of point 1).
- I'll have to ask more ifnormed people on that one (they'll complete below). Also, apart from the maintener, the only recourse is to write mails to over-blog's abuse address, not too successfully.
- =^^= 17:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Questions:
Note I've re-added this pending further discussion in light of Darkoneko's statements above. Thanks — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Troubleshooting and problems
|
|
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above). |
- none currently.
User: namespace abuse
|
|
This section is for reporting abuse of userpages for promotional purposes; 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). Abuse across several wikis should be reported here; please provide links to example behaviour. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived. |
- none currently.
Discussion
Noticeboard/Helpdesk
I remember having a look at the SBL work a year ago or so, but my curiousity was quelled since it appeared to be way to complicated. This may have been discussed before, but I feel we lack some kind of noticeboard/helpdesk for spam related work. What I'm thinking of is a page where users
- involved with removing crosswikispam can request help from each other (Could someone please check User:COIBot/Xwiki/example.net, a local user has complained about removal of links? or How come Erwin's tool doesn't show the last additions here [linky]? etc). When I need help with questions like this I ping someone at #wikimedia-external-linksconnect, but not everybody wants to use IRC. In order to recruit (and keep) non-irc spam-fighters this could be of help. I don't think I would actively have joined here had I not found my way (guided by Mike...) to the irc-channel.
- not familiar with crosswikispam could ask questions without having to worry to much about templates/format/where actually to post it. (example.net has been spammed at nb.wiki and nn.wiki, maybe somehing you should look into? or Why can't I add example.com/de at fr.wiki when I can add it at de.wiki) etc etc). Again remembering a year back or so, I came across something that looked like spam, but instead of using half an hour figuring out how/where to report it I sent Herby an e-mail ;) Finn Rindahl 15:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seems a good idea to get first aid when necesaire and I support Finnrind's idea. SBL is complicated and it takes more than 2 minutes to understand how to do and not all the people is always avalaible via IRC. Best regards. —Dferg (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea, but I don't think we need a new page? How about Talk:Spam blacklist/Help? --Erwin 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, that page would do just fine. If noone objects I'll make some minor changes at this an that åage to clearer invite users to ask spam related questions there.Finn Rindahl 18:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why are we relegating such queries to a different page than this one? Surely if someone has a domain for consideration or a more general question they can find a somewhat-suitable location here (and if not, we will refactor & move it as needed). I would much rather see such things dealt with here than hidden away on some other page where they won't be noticed. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, after having had a secong look around and noticed that various pages has been suggested for this purpose previously I didn't follow up my own suggestion here. So here's a new suggestion: is it possible to make the list of coibot-reports by default hidded - that list looks like gibberish and a lot of it to any new user, and could scare of any user taking a look at this page. Finn Rindahl 13:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, just put some collaps-span around it. Makes sense, actually, most visitors are interested in the 'normal' additions and removals. On the other hand, if they come to report a site they noticed and see that COIBot also caught it could take work away from them (just add a comment, practically all data is in the report). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why are we relegating such queries to a different page than this one? Surely if someone has a domain for consideration or a more general question they can find a somewhat-suitable location here (and if not, we will refactor & move it as needed). I would much rather see such things dealt with here than hidden away on some other page where they won't be noticed. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, that page would do just fine. If noone objects I'll make some minor changes at this an that åage to clearer invite users to ask spam related questions there.Finn Rindahl 18:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea, but I don't think we need a new page? How about Talk:Spam blacklist/Help? --Erwin 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)