Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Canoe1967 (talk | contribs)
10,807 edits
m →‎squared5.com: Suggestion
→‎squared5.com: deferwhite
Line 120: Line 120:


== squared5.com ==
== squared5.com ==
* {{Link summary|squared5.com}}
Needed for the article [[Comparison of video converters]] but it seems to be allowed in article [[MPEG Streamclip]]. If it is blacklisted for good reason the other link should be removed. The site looks fine to me now, [[Donkey|but I don't know]] what criteria add it to the list.--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 13:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Needed for the article [[Comparison of video converters]] but it seems to be allowed in article [[MPEG Streamclip]]. If it is blacklisted for good reason the other link should be removed. The site looks fine to me now, [[Donkey|but I don't know]] what criteria add it to the list.--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 13:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010 Archive Jun 2#Video software spam]] indicates that it was spammed along with many other similar domains by several sockpuppts.
:Blacklisting will prevent new links from being added. It won't cause existing links to go away automatically, and my understanding is that attempts to edit articles containing such links will go through unless some change is made to the link. If you delete a link that's blacklisted, it can't be re-added, though.
:{{deferwhite}} to white-list a specific URL. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 14:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


=Completed Proposed removals=
=Completed Proposed removals=

Revision as of 14:25, 19 March 2012

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with 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 – 482727897 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions


    entireeducation.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like this has ceased. --Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    socrata.com

    This website seems to be used for user-provided content; the user in question has been linking to pirated versions of Beatles albums there diff1 diff2, and has now posted a long but not very coherent attack at Jimbo's talk page on unnamed editor(s) as a "bad man" who "makes lobby" for EMI (copyright holders) and Apple Corps., or so I deduce (English is not Tom111's first language, possibly not even his/her second or third). Their theory is that pirated recordings are okay, because they are for "education and culture (purposes)" knowledge. While I was typing this, User:MuZemike blocked Tom111 as a sockpuppet of User:Crazy1980, so presumably this is not the only time spamlinks to this site have been posted. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel that is going to help. However, he has used different sites to continue in said spamming, judging from the recent IPs and socks he has used. --MuZemike 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Object - seems to have plenty of legitimate uses, although I can't say one way or the other whether it is used legimiately much. Indeed, it even has an article here! It may be an idea to write an edit filter and monitor what it is used for in practice, at least for a couple of months. Egg Centric 21:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd tend to agree with Egg Centric; not seeing the link inappropriately used other than the banned sockpuppet's attempts. If we block socrata, he'll just find another unblocked place to post it. His edits are easy enough to spot; best to just block him on site and move on. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    --Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    allonestopshop.webs.com

    links
    accounts

    Repeated addition of Commission Breakthrough spam page by multiple IPs over several days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added several to the blacklist in the past; but as a general rule, I don't like to both report and add the link to the SBL myself - I like to have a second level of review of the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    boatshoesbin.com

    Instances

    Usage of the link to "source" various statements at Boat shoes. Jojalozzo 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    thebsdb.com

    thebsdb.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 - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    82.236.119.236 (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)

    Instances: [4], [5], [6]

    The site claims it is an unbiased software comparison site but vendors pay to have their software listed and promoted. Jojalozzo 16:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Partyanalyst.com

    partyanalyst.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 - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    The link was first spammed by an IP then by User:Kamalakardandu (where he has been warned multiple times on his talk page + his contribs indicate the same). The articles Elections in Andhra Pradesh, 2012 assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh (which ive nom'd for deletion) + 2012 elections in India as well as the requisite pages of 2012 elections that exist on the latter page have featured this link at some point or the other. (the other links on his contribs are probably spam too)Lihaas (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The COIbot report shows 3 users adding these links. One is the IP address (which I have blocked for 4 months, as that is the length of time it's been adding these links), one is Kalamakardandu (now indef blocked as a spam-only account), and one is an established editor who probably added a few of these links as valid references. COIbot shows only recent additions, however. Special:LinkSearch of *.partyanalyst.com shows a whole bunch more. Some may be legitimate, some may be spam, hard to tell. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw the site it seems not t be a media one reporting (which link ssome stories welsewhere) but a pvt org catering to other cos and with registration)Lihaas (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note others beyond the COIbot report have been adding this link. 122.169.253.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for example. I've cleaned up the links; many were refspam inside article headers of all places.
    During my cleanup I observed that most of the stuff reported on that site is third-hand, and could be referenced to official sources or reliable secondary sources instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what hthat means, but is it blcklisted? its done more harm than good on WPLihaas (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    manuals.makeuseof.com.s3.amazonaws.com

    Spammers

    Repeated spamming of low quality e-book software manuals across multiple articles in the past 48 hours. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    lulu.com

    It is unclear to me why this site is blocked. I checked the log, and apart from the fact that it was blocked in March 2008, I could not learn anything. This website appears to be a proper respectable e-publishing site, as its wikipedia entry explains: Lulu_(company). I was trying to insert a link to a calendar published on that site by the American Institute of Physics: http://www. lulu. com/content/legacy-lulustudio-calendar/esva-2012-calendar/11198291 Erkcan (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    balamoosh.com

    Why this site is blocked is beyond me. It's a real growing online browser game site with many many users. What's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.228.64 (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It was blocked as a result of your spamming. You were warned, yet chose to continue. --Hu12 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Caesarstone.com

    Hi, I'm trying to save a new article for the company Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd., which is in the process of IPO-ing on the Nasdaq. It's not letting me save the page because there's an external link to the company's website in the infobox. Someone please unblacklist Caesarstone.com, thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've white-listed the following URL; http://www.caesarstone.com/en/Pages/default.aspx for use in that article. Please use the exact URL string, any deviation from that will not work. thanks.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what the fuss is over the regular .com URL, but will do.—Biosketch (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    squared5.com

    Needed for the article Comparison of video converters but it seems to be allowed in article MPEG Streamclip. If it is blacklisted for good reason the other link should be removed. The site looks fine to me now, but I don't know what criteria add it to the list.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010 Archive Jun 2#Video software spam indicates that it was spammed along with many other similar domains by several sockpuppts.
    Blacklisting will prevent new links from being added. It won't cause existing links to go away automatically, and my understanding is that attempts to edit articles containing such links will go through unless some change is made to the link. If you delete a link that's blacklisted, it can't be re-added, though.
     Defer to Whitelist to white-list a specific URL. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Spam Page?

    • I'm wikifying any pages for helping WP. but Academyrank.com, this page has a blacklisted url (http:/Academyrank.com). I don't know if this page is a spam or not. --Yodamgod (talk)
    Details;
    Spam accounts
    AdSense, datamining and spam site. Was Globaly blacklisted for abuse only two weeks after the domains creation(last Oct.). The article appears to be nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the blacklisting by, once again, using Wikipedia for promotion. Thanks for pointing it out, its been deleted. Done--Hu12 (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisted title

    I tried to run WP:REFLINKS on the Rockstar North article, but REFLINKS came back with an error stating that this article on The Register was a blacklisted title (WARNING : Blacklisted title (Grand Theft Auto in the dock over US road killing • The Register)). I'm not aware of there being any problems regarding The Register being a reliable source, so could someone point me in the right direction. Is this the correct place to enquire about the blacklist entry, and possibly get it changed. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That link is not blacklisted, either here or on Meta, or you wouldn't have been able to link to it in your report. I also note that the error message is saying the title is blacklisted, rather than the link; I'd guess the tool doesn't like the title for some reason, possibly because of the "• The Register" bit at the end. Your best bet would be to contact the author of the tool. Anomie⚔ 11:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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 wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion

    Automatic archiving

    Due to the format of this this page and how we archive, most archive bots cannot function here. However I just took a few minutes and wrote a custom script that should do it for us. It makes one change to convert {{LinkSummaryLive}} to {{LinkSummary}} in order to bypass any spam filter issues. (I may need to adjust it some more). There are two variables that can be configured: stale conversations, and ones tagged with templates indicating defer/done/not done ect. Right now my thoughts would be to set stale conversations to 30 days, and those tagged to 15. Thoughts? ΔT The only constant 05:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To keep this page clear, I'd like to see automated archiving - though I also like the thing we do on the whitelist: we have the open requests, which get either granted or denied, they then get moved to an appropriate section (IMHO, that could be after 24 hours), and later archived (which would be nice after say, 1-2 weeks, bit depending on size). At least they are then quick out of the 'open' area, which makes it easier to focus on what needs 'quick' attention, while still having the posts handy for some time if the problem expands to other areas, or if there are quick de-listing requests.
    I would also suggest that both 'live' links get converted (and the {{LinkSummaryLive}} converted to {{LinkSummary}}) when moving the requests.
    All in all, yes, please! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to create the the new sections I can tweak the code. I would request that each "section" retain the primary '=' section level, so that we are not mixing section levels, but it would be trivial to adjust my archive code. Just let me know the time periods, and I could have the code operational in less than 24 hours, and then would go ahead with the BRFA process. ΔT The only constant 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To the original question ... what is the bot name? Has it already been approved, or is it pending approval? For time duration, I think we can start it with 45 days stale, and tighten it up later if needed. I would prefer to have longer than needed as the starting point and adjust down, rather than too short and adjusting up. My only other concern is ensuring there's an easy to access emergency off switch (possibly linked from the header for this page). --- Barek (talk) - 18:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not filed for approval yet, I wanted to flush the idea out, find issues, get those addressed, before ever going to the BRFA process. As for the shutoff, that should be trivial, just a matter of configuring a wiki page. ΔT The only constant 18:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Before proceeding any further, you may want to read Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links, which is proposing some changes to where these requests are submitted, as well as how the requests on the page are structured. --- Barek (talk) - 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible malware

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

    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)[reply]

    what's wrong with google news?

    The filter blocked http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Marcie+Alberts&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CDYQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.newsbank.com%2Fg%2FGooglePM%2FAK%2Flib00100%2C0EB6BF8A6E4A784A.html&ei=DPBcT6mJHKrc0QH0-PijDw&usg=AFQjCNG2ILAqFjY6tlu-flqQpc8nvOatfw&sig2=1R9Kk4z4UINSZtaInIEyqQ I do not know how to tell whether it's on this of the global blacklist, as I cannot find it or any part of it on either . DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Google fiddles around with the URL so that it can track you. It also can (and I believe, has) be used to circumvent the blacklist. Is this what you are looking for? MER-C 02:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the entry on the global blacklist is \bgoogle\..*?/url\?. In general with these Google redirector links, just follow the link in your browser and then copy the url you were redirected to. Anomie⚔ 19:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=482727897"