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
SoulRiser (talk | contribs)
22 edits
→‎EQI.org: deferwhite
Line 356: Line 356:


==EQI.org==
==EQI.org==
* {{Link summary|eqi.org}}
* {{Link summary|eqi.org}}

:: I'm not sure why this is blocked (don't understand all that COIbot stuff), but I would like to create a wiki page on Invalidation, which does not currently exist, and eqi.org has a wealth of information I could cite about that (and other emotional intelligence related topics as well).
I'm not sure why this is blocked (don't understand all that COIbot stuff), but I would like to create a wiki page on Invalidation, which does not currently exist, and eqi.org has a wealth of information I could cite about that (and other emotional intelligence related topics as well). {{unsigned|‎SoulRiser|09:52, 12 July 2013}}

:The record that led to the blacklisting in 2009 is here: [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2009#eqi.org]]. The problems eqi.org caused were fairly massive, including offsite solicitations to spam Wikipedia. It won't be removed from the blacklist.
:{{deferwhite}} to allow linking to specific pages on that site for referencing articles. Bear in mind that if alternative sources for the same referencing purpose can be found on a non-blacklisted site, then a white-listing request is likely to be denied. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 17:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


=Completed Proposed removals=
=Completed Proposed removals=

Revision as of 17:04, 12 July 2013

    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 – 563987876 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    angellis.net

    angellis.net: 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 Various editors, mostly anonymous IPs have been using this website as a reference on several articles about prehistoric animals, but, the site is not a reputable source by any stretch, being a fanmade site filled with original research of very little value.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    footballnation.com

    footballnation.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

    Someone seems to be spamming a non-notable American football blog across the articles of many American Football players. --Jayron32 04:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at this user's history, I believe this is nothing more than a well-intentioned reader of the aforementioned football web log deciding this year to take the rather bold initiative of adding the results of an annual, lengthy quarterback-ranking article to Wikipedia, by adding those rankings to the pages of each quarterback listed. In my opinion, what this fellow is doing (while perhaps a bit misguided) is not only admirable, but it is obviously quite a project, and it must have taken some time to put together - what with finding each quarterback's page, customizing each edit, and locating the appropriate section and spot in which to place each paragraph within each article. Seeing that project so suddenly destroyed may well have been quite a harsh blow to this person's morale, and as such could be a major obstacle in the way of this person continuing to become a decent editor.
         If the site in question is truly non-notable (which I'd buy since I'd never heard of it until I encountered this user's edits, though I can't definitively say whether it is or is not notable), then fine, the edits in question are better left reverted. However, I believe this person believes that it is a notable news source, and they do not seem to intend to be a spammer. Thus, kindly letting them know that "Football Nation" is not considered by Wikipedia's policy to be a notable news source should be all that's needed here. Placing a threatening note on their talk page, on the other hand, seems generally counterproductive towards the goal of teaching them where they've specifically erred without scaring them away.
    - Smike (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    wikinewstime.com

    wikinewstime.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

    If I remember correctly there were quite a few more IP addresses spamming this site, but these were the only three I could find. - SudoGhost 17:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Included a more recent account. - SudoGhost 12:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    soccerdatabase.eu

    soccerdatabase.eu: 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

    This was recently discussed at ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass removal of references to soccerdatabase.eu website. soccerdatabase.eu/ is a mirror site of www.playerhistory.com/ - the latter is defunct and the owner is launching legal action against the former. GiantSnowman 18:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If, basically, it is established that soccerdatabase.eu is infringing the copyright of playerhistory.com by running an (illegal) mirror, then I would suggest that this is blacklisted on meta and assist in the cross-wiki cleanup. Otherwise (if there is no copyright infringement), is there really merit to blacklist this, it is used in good faith, as far as I can really find not actually spammed (there are some accounts who have used this site A LOT, but that is also true for playerhistory.com)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 May 2013‎
    Should we e-mail Playerhistory (I have an e-mail address for the owner) for evidence of the (supposed) copyright infringement of soccerdatabase? GiantSnowman 08:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be an idea to ask the editor from AN/I to come here and comment on this - and we should be careful for libel statements before things really are established. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All three discussions are already linked. GiantSnowman 08:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Any movement on this? GiantSnowman 15:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you email playerhistory as you apparently intended? Have you initiated a discussion on the meta blacklist? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No to both. There was clear apathy here to my suggestion to e-mail playerhistory, and I never edit on meta. GiantSnowman 16:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're the only one who knows how to contact the owner, so doing that is really up to you. I think it would be a good idea to establish some evidence of copyright violations, in which case blacklisting the soccerdatabase site would be an easy decision. As Beetstra pointed out, it would be best to establish evidence of infringement first before exploring a meta blacklist, so contacting the owner would be a logical first step. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you even been to the soccerdatabase.eu website? It is a 100% copy - it even has the playerhistory logos etc. and it has the contacts for playerhistory listed. Is that not enough evidence of copyvio for you? GiantSnowman 08:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a copy does not necessarily have to mean it is a violation of copyright. Many legitimate copies (mirrors) of Wikipedia exist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ...but this is clear copyvio - it is a 100% copy of copyrighted material. GiantSnowman 16:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So nobody seems to care that this website is a massive copyvio? GiantSnowman 16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    telerik.com

    telerik.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 

    $ whois 82.103.64.57
inetnum:        82.103.64.0 - 82.103.64.255
netname:        TELERIK
descr:          Telerik Corp.

    This is only the recent abuse, See WikiProject Spam report for the full story. MER-C 11:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    tr.im URL shortener

    tr.im: 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

    This URL shortener has been used recently:

    And sometime in the past - I removed one use here. Deli nk (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    URL shorteners belong on the global spam blacklist.  Defer to Global blacklist, request filed. MER-C 13:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know. Thanks for filing it there for me! Deli nk (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    suitusa.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 13:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    secure.vivid.com

    secure.vivid.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

    Affiliate site for Vivid Entertainment.

    Spammers

    Trivialist (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    likewap.in

    Adsense google_ad_client = pub-2363916027311907 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report)
    Google Analytics ID: UA-37869191 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)
    Google Analytics ID: UA-37867698 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

    Previous incidents
    Sites spammed
    Spammers

    MER-C 10:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    prowresblog.blogspot.com

    Spammer

    See the discussion initiated by the website's owner at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Link_to_ProWresBlog. Although there is a clear COI in this editor pushing his/her own website, the real problem is the huge amount of copyvio content - screencaps taken directly from Sky Sports in the UK as well as other TV channels, plus videos and animated gifs. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    parstimes.com

    According to the owner of the website here, parstimes.com is a personal page with economical purpose. At the moment there are more than 99 links mainly on EL section to this website.Farhikht (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    wizicam.com

    Spammers

    A webcam website that's been aggressively spammed by multiple IPs and users. For diffs of spam, see the contibs for the spammers listed. SpencerT♦C 17:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    blogintomystery.com

    See WikiProject Spam report. Of the 30 or so links I have removed, all of them were added by that /17. MER-C 08:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.tvmediaisights.com

    This has been used to source various ratings information, however by admission of one of the above listed users, he writes for the website and in several instances has replaced viable sources from Zap2It/TVBytheNumbers with those of his own authorship [1]. There is nothing that makes this website any better than the others, as there appears to be no vetting or editorial insight, and the owner's insistence that he is not wrong in doing what he's doing just shows we don't need this to be on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Was recently alerted to this issue by several of our site's members. As standard Wikipedia policy, self-promotion is not allowed. Our website has no affiliation with any of these users. We believe this is a matter that needs to be resolved between the users themselves to avoid edit-warring and we ask for the request here to be denied. TheXMedia (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    tvsoff.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 12:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    listenfms.com

    Google Analytics ID: UA-38083957 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)
    Google Analytics ID: UA-35590563 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)
    Google Analytics ID: UA-35488651 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

    Spammers

    Spamming is ongoing: [2]ongoing. MER-C 12:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Typo in your second link, MER-C.) --Elvey (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    timaticweb.com

    timaticweb.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

    There has been a massive amount of spamming of www.timaticweb.com. I came across links to this site on Visa requirements for British nationals, where I have just removed 108 spam links to the site, but after doing so I ran Special:LinkSearch on *.timaticweb.com and found that there are another 5276 links. Checking a sample of these suggests that every one of them is an unambiguous spam link. Clearing them all up is going to be a major job, but perhaps at least we can stop more from flowing in. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The above websites have been repeatedly spamlinked from Kaun Banega Crorepati (an Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?). They all falsely claim to be official KBC websites, or else the users inserting links to them falsely claim or imply that they are official KBC websites. As far as I can tell the websites are operated by scammers trying to trick members of the public into paying fees (via PayPal) to register as a contestant. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2012#AdSense pub-6522157377920590 for a previous report. Some or all of these sites are already on XLinkBot's revert list, but some particularly persistent spammers are using autoconfirmed accounts (e.g., Neel12mani (talk · contribs)) to insert the links. Note that the blogspot domains exist on many TLDs (.in, .de, .com, etc.). —Psychonaut (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    mosler-safe.de

    IP range adding a dubious link to the German website of a "Mosler Safe Company" to various safe-related articles, including Mosler Safe Company, a historically famous American safe manufacturer that went bankrupt in 2001. --McGeddon (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    sports-rings.com

    VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    easybusinessposters.com

    Google Analytics ID: UA-23731192 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

    Spammers

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 06:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    Guitarmegastore

    Spam is coming out of Hungary; spammer adds this link, or replaces valid company URL with their own, for instance here. Blacklist please; cleanup is a drag. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. I just cleaned up a couple more. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    guitarmegastore.com

    Spammers
    • Open proxy

    MER-C 12:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Already plus Added from the other #Guitarmegastore entry above. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    checkmarx.com

    checkmarx.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

    Long-term problem with multiple accounts promoting the software company Checkmarx and its products. Behaviour includes persistent spamming of external links to checkmarx.com. Some diffs are provided in the list above; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grenoble jojo for further details. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added by WilliamH. MER-C 02:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    roichecker.com

    roichecker.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

    Persistant reference spamming across city related articles. After being blocked as 207 came back immediately as the 223 IP address to continue spamming. The articles they are adding these to are being added in alphabetical order, which seems to suggest that they fully intend to spam all 400 of these articles. - SudoGhost 19:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding another IP. Editor has now been blocked twice; blocking does no good as they simply switch IPs and continue spamming articles. - SudoGhost 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to blacklist by User:Soap. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits mentioned here have been obviously done without proper knowledge of the Wikipedia rules and departed from earlier contributions were cities were mentioned because of being added in the top 400 list. Such mentions in the past had a different structure (i.e. "[City] was added to the Top 400 business investments destinations with high return potential."), which comply with citation standards. We are still researching on how the additions cited here occurred but are anyway committed to add content only when it is compliant. Please, see that adding the above mentioned references to articles of cities has had a positive impact on the localities as they are always looking for more attention and opportunities to receive investors to create jobs. Blacklisting the site affects more than just the site, it also takes merit off those localities. May you please inform me on how to request the delisting? May you take care of it? Or I should proceed to request inclusion in the whitelist? Sincerely, --Mba lwall (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That is hardly Wikipedia's problem, Mba lwall. The IPs had ample chance to stop pushing the link, and I presume that these IPs were pushing the link to promote the localities' businesses. That is not what Wikipedia is for. I guess one will need to find other outlets. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    Coopers Pick

    Appears that somebody working for the Philadelphia Philies has blacklisted the site due to a reference on the site about a lawsuit involving their mascot. The proposed re-edit can be seen on the Philadelphia Philyy Phanatic Wikipedia listing.

    The Phillies paid a judgment of $2.5 million to a man at a paint store event when the Phanatic jumped the patron with a rough-house bear hug, from which the man sustained serious back injuries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

    Actually, this site was added because someone (maybe you?) was relentlessly spamming it in Wikipedia—see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Feb 1#cooperspick.com. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pv-magazine

    'They have stopped ..', I am afraid that is because it is blacklisted. I would suggest to  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a request in this section (by the same person) that sat here quite a while, unanswered, and it fell off this page during the June archiving. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2013#pv-magazine.com.
    We make a point to say we consider de-listing requests from trusted, high-volume editors. Apteva isn't exactly "high volume" but certainly trusted (especially since Apteva is a legitimate alternative account), and I see no evidence of a COI as with a previous de-listing request from 2011. Apteva has posted a request twice now. It deserves some consideration and discussion.
    It seems that Pv-magazine is the authoritative reliable source for photovoltaic topics, and it is often difficult (I have tried) to find alternatives. Deferring to the whitelist may create an undue burden there if it needs to be sourced frequently. I suggest perhaps 'promoting' the domain from the blacklist to XLinkBot and monitoring it for a while. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    EQI.org

    I'm not sure why this is blocked (don't understand all that COIbot stuff), but I would like to create a wiki page on Invalidation, which does not currently exist, and eqi.org has a wealth of information I could cite about that (and other emotional intelligence related topics as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎SoulRiser (talk • contribs) 09:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The record that led to the blacklisting in 2009 is here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2009#eqi.org. The problems eqi.org caused were fairly massive, including offsite solicitations to spam Wikipedia. It won't be removed from the blacklist.
     Defer to Whitelist to allow linking to specific pages on that site for referencing articles. Bear in mind that if alternative sources for the same referencing purpose can be found on a non-blacklisted site, then a white-listing request is likely to be denied. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    faizhaider.co.nr & smfaizhaider.co.nr

    If one uses {{User:Faizhaider}} which should show the user page one gets a spam filter warning saying that one is trying to link to http://www.smfaizhaider.co.nr and http://www.faizhaider.co.nr. This issue creates problem for users when they try to include my username in any discussion. I searched the blacklist logs but was not able to find any entry for the two sites. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. I can't see a reason to de-list blacklisted sites over a non-existent problem.
    I am able to include User:Faizhaider and the template {{user|Faizhaider}} as Faizhaider (talk · contribs), as you can see by this reply. The template {{User:Faizhaider}} (with a colon in stead of a vertical bar) would transclude your entire user page, and nobody should be doing that. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    freedom is sacred blog

    This link on the Jesus Christians wikipage has been blacklisted for some reason. The Jesus Christians wikipage was recently modified in a biased way and when trying to revert we discovered that this link was "blacklisted", however when checking the blacklist for May 2013 the domain was not listed. We would like to restore the link because of historic significance. Thanks.

    Funny, I think there is a broken regex on Wikipedia's blacklist. It seems to be caught by '\bfreedom.\ws\b .. I'll correct that.
    However, I still don't think this should be linked, could you please have a look through e.g. the external links guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Liberty Reserve

    libertyreserve.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

    Liberty Reserve is in the news as it has been shut down by authorities. Liberty Reserve dot com currently shows a seizure notice. A link to this would be of encyclopaedic interest for the Liberty Reserve article. LukeSurl t c 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    But it would last only as long as the domain name stays associated with that company, which may not be long. Why isn't it enough to say in the article that "Liberty Reserve's webiste libertyreserve.com currently shows a seizure notice"? You don't actually have to have the http prefix in it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    guard-soft.com

    Not sure why this is blocked. I checked 

     en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Titleblacklist
 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist

    and this site is not listed. I tried sitecheck.sucuri.net/scanner/ 

     All referenced security checking sites showed guard-soft.com as OK, except

    that McAfee seems to give a 'warning' but fails to explain why. I requested McAfee to recheck there assessment. Note: I discovered wikipedia blocking this site when I attempted to edit: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilloche

    This is globally blacklisted, basically because it was spammed to, amongst other pages, to Guilloche, and on multiple wikis (also on the Russian Wikipedia). The reason for blacklisting is just plainly that it was linkspam, that link does not belong on those pages, yet editors found it necessary to add it at least 3 times to that page on en.wikipedia. We are not a vehicle for promoting or advertising a product, we are writing an encyclopedia. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    CSS overflow

    style="overflow:auto... is recognized as a SPAM site/link; style="width:...;overflow:auto... isn't. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    False positive?

    I'm trying to troubleshoot an issue reported via OTRS where a person tried to add a link to one of the Requested Articles sections (their personal website). The domain has a pattern like so: www.<name>-actor.com. I tried several combinations (e.g., myteethhurt-actor.com and foobar-actor.com and it seems the issue is the -actor bit. The domain in question is not on either the local or global blacklists, and I can't find a pattern in either that would match "-actor" exactly. Should I request an exception or just ask the person to omit the link or is this something that we should fix? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for not getting back to you faster, the item in question is \bactor(?:suriya|arya)?\.com\b from meta added on 23:39, 28 November 2009 the user was optimizing several regex and goofed. The correct regex should be \bactor(suriya|arya)\.com\b Werieth (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2013 (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

    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]

    Where are the guidelines?

    Where are the guidelines for what is blacklisted and what is not? Is it based upon the content of the sites, i.e. unmanageable advertising, or upon the action of editors in adding dubious citations? Or both? Could the guidelines be linked in a header from this Interface page? --Bejnar (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Article-only blacklist?

    Do we have the technical capability of designating links as blocked in articles only? In an IFD or PUI discussion, occasionally I get blocked by the spam filter for trying to link to a site as the source for a copyvio image. For example, examiner.com should obviously never ever in a million years be linked to from an article, but if we had the technical capability of doing so, it would be nice to be able to link to it at IFD/PUI. --B (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that is not possible (though I think that there have been several bug-requests filed about changes to the system, none have ever received significant attention - this is one of those type of things).
    In any case, you could just remove the 'http://' from the front, and then you can add it. It is a bit more work for the person to actually follow the link (copy the data, paste it in the address bar), but that works. That is also done for copyvio-tagging of articles when the link is on one of those domains. (general note: any other use of this trick besides for discussing the merit of a link, or reporting copyvios, is generally determined to be 'disruptive', especially in mainspace, as it can be explained as a attempt to circumvent blacklisting). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    \*.onion was recently added, but the article Tor (anonymity network) still has a link of .onion type as per a year or two old consensus. There is no whitelisting of that link, so what impact will the blacklisting of *.onion have on that article? Belorn (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it was added to the the article prior to blacklisting it will have no effect on editing that article or saving future changes. However, if the link is removed, any attempts to re-add a .onion link will be blocked and any changes or additions which containing that type of link cannot not be saved. Exististing blacklisted links in Wikipedia articles won't effect the ability to edit those articles. Any future additions of a blacklisted link will be blocked. --Hu12 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If the link is really relevant there (e.g. the official link of the site), then specific whitelisting could be requested to include the link (here, one could do it so that if it accidentally gets removed, it can be re-added without problem - I've run into a case like that a couple of days ago, where I had to 1) whitelist the link, 2) revert the edits to get it back to appropriate, 3) de-whitelist the link, and then 4) request whitelisting, which is quite a hassle). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Collateral damage: which blacklist?

    Over on the whitelist page there's a whitelist request for shoe-shop.com. I had offered to whitelist the 'about' page, as is standard practice for blacklisted sites that have their own Wikipedia article, until I noticed that it isn't blacklisted. Locally or globally. It isn't in any logfile. I can't find any record of prior discussion in the archives of this page or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam.

    That tells me it's collateral damage. However, I can't find any wildcard entries in either blacklist that would trigger on it. And yet, a URL containing shoe-shop.com triggers the blacklist error message. I'm sure there's some pattern that I'm not seeing. How would I locate the problem blacklist entry? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh. Now that I see it, it's obvious. Thanks. How did you find that?
    It looks as if the .com suffix wasn't intended to be caught in that.
    I posed a question at meta, but I suspect it's easier just to whitelist the domain here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive got a tool that checks things against both blacklists as a feature for another site. Werieth (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For those access to COIBot on IRC, you can ask COIBot as well ('wherelisted shoe-shop.com'). Other option, include the link-summary template here, wait for COIBot to refresh/generate the report on meta, and it should be listed there (see m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/shoe-shop.com) as well. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You could write a short program on your computer's command line to test each regular expression on a given string. For example, in bash:
    wget -O- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist | grep -o '^\\b[^ ]*' \
| while read regex
do echo "shoe-shop.com" | grep -P -q "$regex" && echo "$regex"
done
    —Psychonaut (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Use for unhelpful reference URLs that aren't actually spam?

    Is the blacklist sometimes used for unhelpful reference URLs that aren't actually spam? Should it be?--Elvey (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    example below:

    Based on a small sample I looked at, it seems Wikipedia has many apparently dead links (like this intended to be to PDFs of the form ebscohost.com...pdfviewer...: All 7 of the 323 pages containing ebscohost and pdfviewer] I looked at had dead EBSCO links. These are NOT links that hit a paywall (like this. Rather, they bring up 404-like server error messages.

    A second problematic type of EBSCO link are the three added by a user's (sole ever) edit that are of the form hxxp://0-web.ebscohost.com.sculib.scu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=[hex string]@sessionmgr13&vid=4&hid=13. (Note the bold portion!) Presumably, these links work ONLY for subscribers that are ALSO at SCU. We shouldn't allow such links, and perhaps the blacklist (or a similarly functioning parallel system) would be a good solution? Or maybe there's a formula that can be used to fix all such ebscohost.com.[foo].edu and ebscohost.com...ca links?

    PS Since I started writing this, I've noticed that EBSCO staff is heavily editing their own article. On the plus side, maybe that means they'd be available, willing, and able to help fix these links or suggest ways to deal with them systematically. note posted. --Elvey (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The first problem is non-persistent URLs. Eg, Marcelo in the Real World has a link to http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=fa89dffb-c9cf-4099-b46f-b0be569e7258%40sessionmgr4&vid=14&hid=19. That is not a persistent link. The correct permalink (as EBSCOhost calls it) for that article is http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ulh&AN=37698669&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
    Could you have converted the former into the latter without the other info in the cite template, Nurg?--Elvey (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why not. But I don't intend to do it. That article has 7 such links - there's little to be gained by doing one and not the others and I'm not interested in the article. Nurg (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood my question. I'm asking if something is possible, not that you edit Marcelo in the Real World. I assume you figured out how to convert the former into the latter by using the other info in the cite template, but I wonder if my assumption is correct.--Elvey (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed I misunderstood. I doubt it's possible to convert the non-persistent URL to the persistent URL using the data in the template. I have access to EBSCOhost through a library and searched for the article and got the permalink. Nurg (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The second problem is the use of a proxied URL, ie, the link points to a institution's proxy server such as sculib.scu.edu. This is not specific to ebscohost - it happens with links to other subscription databases too. A search for "ezproxy", for example, will bring up hundreds of such links. They are a bad thing. Nurg (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am tempted to see these sites as redirects, which will be location-dependent whether they work. I would consider that these should typically be converted to direct links to the object (within educational institutions, one can generally use a web-proxy to get to literature - a direct link would either be the link on the server where the literature resides, or the DOI. If someone then has to change that to go through the proxy, that is then something that that person needs to do (we can't anticipate that by any definition). Links through proxy servers have no place whatsoever. I am somewhat tempted to say that these need blanket blacklisting on meta, as they could possibly be abused to circumvent other blacklistings (for a relatively open proxy), and serve no function whatsoever to most readers except for the (few) ones that have access through the proxy - I doubt even if the url can be understood well enough to be able to figure out a real link from it. It is however going to be very obnoxious for the users that in good faith insert the proxy url they copy from their web-browser and then they can't save, and one could think of cases where it is appropriate (if information is only available to people who can pass the proxy and no-where else in the world, it could still a good reference for certain information - think of it of a book of which the single copy is in an nearly inaccessible library (the library in the Vatican), it is still verifiable by proxying through people who do have access to the library (ask the pope)).

    Note, that with creative regex rule-writing, we could blacklist the two 'bad' examples of Nurg (the non-persistent link and the institution proxies), still enabling good ones (the permalinks). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose that we already have examiner.com in here, and it's here, I assume, because of WP:RS, so I think it's appropriate that we add regexes for the impermanent URLs. (Arguably it would be better to have a similarly functioning parallel system with its own error messages handle sites like examiner.com and this ebsco problem, but in the meantime, I let's move toward (cautiously!) putting in regexes to handle them.) Let's continue discussion at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&action=edit&section=11 ? I see these links on other sites - e.g 'fr.' .--Elvey (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: Discussion continues at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&action=edit&section=11.

    I'm getting no response there. Can we consider adding this here for now?  : 

    ebscohost\.com(\.|.*(pdfviewer|EbscoContent))

    --Elvey (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Documentation error

    blacklist starts with some comments and the last line of these comments is

    " # * Every non-blank line is a regex fragment which will only match hosts inside URLs"

    This is plainly untrue. (Counterexample: \bbooks\.google\.com/books\?vid=ISBN0521009464\b) Let's replace it with a true statement, e.g.:

    " # * Every non-blank line is a regex fragment. Most only match hosts inside URLs. A few only match certain directories, parameters or filenames of a host. For example, references to certain books at books.google.com are blocked.",
    " # * Every non-blank line is a regex fragment. Most only match hosts inside URLs. A few must also match other parts of an URL."

    or

    " # * Every non-blank line is a regex fragment. Most only match hosts inside URLs. For a few hosts, only certain directories, parameters or filenames are blocked."

    --Elvey (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you please fix the above documentation error? --Elvey (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Sorry for the delay in responding. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Erwin's tool on meta

    On meta, we use the gadget User:Erwin/SBHandler (m:MediaWiki:Gadget-SBHandler.js) to add items to the blacklist on meta. It works from the Spam-blacklist talkpage (m:Talk:Spam blacklist), and from the cross-wiki reports generated by COIBot ('m:User:COIBot/XWiki/example.org'). I think that this tool could also be handy here on en.wikipedia, knowing that we have here also the talkpage of the blacklist ('here'), and the local reports ('Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/example.org') where this could be enabled.

    Would there be interest to have this tool here, and people who are capable/interested to move the gadget here (I tried to hack and activate it through my local .js, but I could not get it to work)?

    (Not willingly wanting to complicate things .. but one could consider to expand the tool to also work on XLinkBot's revertlist - being capable to blacklist from there, or to revertlist from here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=563987876"