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
Protected edit request
→‎Proposed additions: bewikii.com and onam2018.com
Line 86: Line 86:


:{{rto|Jasper Deng}} Handled on meta. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
:{{rto|Jasper Deng}} Handled on meta. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

==bewikii.com and onam2018.com==
* {{linksummary|bewikii.com}}
* {{linksummary|onam2018.com}}
*{{UserSummary|Pichu4}}
*{{UserSummary|Princepichu}}
*{{UserSummary|Princejinu}}
*{{UserSummary|Princapanakkal}}
*{{UserSummary|Shajupanakkal}}
*{{UserSummary|Onam2019}}
*{{IPSummary|2405:204:D101:F01:15A2:4A79:DCFB:9EF8}}
*{{IPSummary|49.15.139.180}}
*{{IPSummary|49.15.140.192}}
*{{IPSummary|27.97.191.29}}
*{{IPSummary|27.97.173.20}}

Two external links being spammed by a sock farm ([[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pichu4]]). Spamming of both links has continued today after previous accounts and IPs were blocked. [[User:Deli nk|Deli nk]] ([[User talk:Deli nk|talk]]) 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


= Proposed removals =
= Proposed removals =

Revision as of 12:13, 11 June 2018

"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Spam blacklist or Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    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 – 845381913 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    nethority.com, pricekart.com

    We have various redlinked users adding links to articles on nethority.com, a non-RS site. www.nethority.com/ however calls itself "Best SEO Agency In India". This probably shouldn't be encouraged. e.g. [1][2][3]

    pricekart.com is a sales site, and is getting similar links added by the same editors. e.g. [4][5][6]

    The editors add various other wikilinking edits, but I'm pretty sure the point is these links. They tend to get reverted very quickly, so you won't find a lot of examples on a search - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @David Gerard: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    serviceobjects.com

    IP obviously connected (see WHOIS) to this "contact vaidation services" company adding spam links to the company's email-signup-walled promotional materials on a number of articles. Has been going on for a few months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ivanvector: this has an own article (Service Objects) and I see only spam by the one IP that you already blocked. I am for now a bit reluctant to blacklist this, but would do so if this now continues on other IPs/accounts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: thanks for checking it out, I did not see that article. Good enough for now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    opsocialmedia.com

    Site selling ghost followers being spammed into WP. Ugh. Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    angelopedia.com

    Following on the now-closed discussion at RSN here, I have removed the ~650 links from mainspace, and this can be blacklisted without disrupting normal editing. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Please disable the links in the RSN discussion, otherwise archiving will choke. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Beetstra, done. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    airpurifierfirst.com

    This site has been repeatedly spammed since at least August 2017. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smartse: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    targetedwebtraffic.com, seo25.com

    spammed by

    Professional SEO sites, spammed with deceptive editing (misleading edit summaries, corrupting existing valid references). No possible encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: it's possible that this is a joe job from competitors, but I'll keep the report here for documentation - up to admins to decide either way. GermanJoe (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The off-wiki fight is not our problem. This stops the disruption to wikipedia, WP is not a vehicle for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    back.ly

    Being used by a persistent IP hopper to vandalize Charles Krauthammer. This is a URL shortener service that should be prohibited like any other.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jasper Deng:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jasper Deng: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    bewikii.com and onam2018.com

    Two external links being spammed by a sock farm (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pichu4). Spamming of both links has continued today after previous accounts and IPs were blocked. Deli nk (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    Csgopedia.com

    Trying to adding the link to the site for KioShiMa article for information about player Maikelele. It appears to doesn’t have any spams.Site does not look like spam. There are 3 top sites about CS:GO esport and this one is one of them- it provides all information about settings of pro players and their current gameplay. Site had changed in 2017 very much. Alexkillern1

    @Alexkillern1: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. The site was also definitely spammed in 2017 by multiple accounts and IPs (this list is not for spam (per sé), but for material that is spammed). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    klassik-resampled.de

    on the Blacklist since 2012 after adding several links for uncommercial digital realisations of Bachs Clavierübungen and other often rare classical music in multiple Language versions of Wikipedia. This was misunderstood as "Spam", meanwhile a music page with thousands of uncommercial recordings of rare classical music can contribute alot and has done so in many Wikipadia-articles before. But there was never any abusive or obnoxious activity nor any other breach of any Wiki-rule from that domain at all. Neither before blacklisting nor in any of the years after. Every link to that site was always a legitime and always regulary approved reasonable contribution to a certain article. The german Indiepedia has recently removed that domain from their Blaclist to allow links see https://www.indiepedia.de/index.php?title=Update2018. There never have been any substancial reason to put or to keep that domain on any blacklist at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c7:e729:e701:9132:3da0:d77d:8b92 (talk • contribs)

    @2003:c7:e729:e701:9132:3da0:d77d:8b92: not blacklisted locally,  Defer to Global blacklist to request global removal, or  Defer to Whitelist to ask for local whitelisting of specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, this was spammed, very hard and a lot of it. I will decline de-listing on meta for that reason. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but that is simply not true at all. Yes there have been after several years of contributions to several Wikipediaarticles in sum quite a bunch of Links. But none of them was in any sense "Spam" but always reasonable contributions to the certain articles. None of those links ever could be regarded as breach oof any Wikipedia rules. So to pretend that there ever was any spam is simply not true and withut any proof. Just show me only one link which wasa set without being a reasonable contribution to the certain article in which is was set. If you cant than you jus pretend wrong things. That should be considered more seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    They were unsolicited additions that continued after requests to stop. Wikipedia defines that as spam. Anyway, we cannot delist here, so either you go to meta (which I don’t give much chance without a significant number of whitelisted links), or you whitelist specific links. —Dirk Beetstra T C 13:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is based on "unsolicited" contributions. That is in no way a criterium for Spam. That I fixed the first removed links based on the strong opinion, that for instance free soundexamples of music of seldom composers one can not listen to in any other way, is scarcly a criteria to mark all contributions I have made over years (always with regular approvement from all Admins) suddenly all as "Spam" this is just a tremendously superficial lie based on alledged "quantitative" arguments, which will easily make everyone who contributes in Wikipedia over years "unsolicited" to a much more abhorrescent spammer than my links ever could be. No, if you realy want to work for the quality of Wikipedia, you should not ignore the quailty of a contribution so completly for really unreasonable "quantitative" arguments, which apply to everyone who contributs here frequently much more. And yes since you pretended, you want to discline similar request for the Metablacklist than there is enough necessity to ask you for a more serious argumentation than the awful superficial argument my contributions are "unsolicited" (whos are not in Wikipedia???) and many. So please stay objective. No one who frequently contributes "unsolicited" over years needs a lot of Whitelist demands to do so. To ask me for that without any proof that any of my contribution was ever not a reasonable contribution to the certain article (all have been approved by Admins up to the day someone started that Spam asumption 2012) or abusiv or obnoxious in any way is simply awful wrong and damages the quality of Wikipedia more than you might pretend to save it with arguing like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You chose to use the same arguments. There were several editors involved in stopping your additions, which did not follow our inclusion standards. Here there is nothing to be done. —Dirk Beetstra T C 14:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    So to care for your message: this is no accusation: Just to mention that I argue with "the same arguments" is not an answer to my question. It is up to the responsible to prove that their decision has a substancial proveable reason. So just show me any of the Links made from blackliste URL which mostly have been for years approved part of the article that has not reasonable relation to the article in which it was posted or have been in any way abusive or obnoxious. And yes the same music recoding could be a reasonable contribution to the same article in ifferent language versions withpout being "crossspamming". So I just ask for that prove for any concrete link justifying tto be regarded as abusive or obnoxious. That is no (same) argument nor an accusation. It is just a simple question, which no one has answered here. How could it be so difficult to answer such a simple question, which is nothing else as the question for a substancial reason for blacklisting. Again this is no accusation, just a simple and direct question fr the responsible which is not yet answeered at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    OK no answer is an aswer to: You are not able to give any substancial conrete prove for the pretended Spam-Character and just want to keep it on the blacklist without substnacial reason. This again is no accusation. Wikipedia is yours, you can do with it what ever you want you are not obliged to justify anything what you are doing with your own wikipedia. It is your good right to do what ever you want. I understood. Than just try another question: You pretend links from the requested Domains "did not follow our inclusion standards". So I just ask you again to give me for that pretention any concrete proof, which certain link ever has breached any of those "inclusion standards" and why it was possible that they nevertheless have been approved by multiple admins over years. Just a simple question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Answer: someone was adding links to articles that were not wanted. They were reverted and the editor was told to stop. They continued adding and starting to sock. That is what WEcall spamming, and that resulted in (futile) blocks. Hence we blacklist to ensure that the spamming stops. You chose not to stop and discuss, you persisted in adding the links, not listening to why we did not want them. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, nor a vehicle for advertising. That YOU think that the blacklisting is wrong is the wrong complaint, that is NEVER a reason to delist: no Declined. Follow my suggestions and make your case individually (specific links for specific pages with proper reason why they add needed info and see what result you get. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    s-fahl.de

    on the Blacklist since 2012 after adding several links from the subdomain klassik.s-fahl.de for uncomercial digital realisations of often rare classical music multiple Language versions of Wikipedia. This was misunderstood as "Spam", meanwhile a music page with thousands of uncommercial recordings of rare classical music can contribute alot and has done so with the regular approval by the Wiki-admins in many Wikipadia-articles before. But there was never any abusive or obnoxious activity nor any other breach of any Wiki-rule from that domain at all, neither in the yers before blacklisting, nor in the years after. Every link to that site was always a legitime and reasonable contribution to the certain article. There never have been any substancial reason to put or to keep that domain on any blacklist at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c7:e729:e701:9132:3da0:d77d:8b92 (talk • contribs)

    @2003:c7:e729:e701:9132:3da0:d77d:8b92: not blacklisted locally,  Defer to Global blacklist to request global removal, or  Defer to Whitelist to ask for local whitelisting of specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, this was spammed, very hard and a lot of it. I will decline de-listing on meta for that reason. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is simply a Lie. There have been only reasonable contributions how much it ever have been over the years none of them could be regarded as "Spam". It was completly wrong to remove and blacklist them and just because I and some others tried to fix that mistake is scarcly a formal but in no way a reasonable argument. It is just a pretext justify personal mistakes of those who have been responsible for that mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Same arguments. We are done here. This is not getting you anywhere. Stop. —Dirk Beetstra T C 14:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My proposal was to remove that URL from the blacklist. I think it is fair to ask for a verifyable reason for that blacklisting. This was not yet done. I have not seen any concrete valuable proof. So please allow wme just to keep asking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I know that is your proposal, but that cannot be done HERE. As to your request:
    In conclusion, since you insisted to insert that link, multiple times without first discussing (after being challenged after the first addition) is enough reason to impose sanctions to stop you. The first choice would be to block your account. However, since this behavior is performed by multiple editors (IPs and named acocunts) blocking is, obviously, not enough (you would just make a new account or take another IP and continue). That resulted in the material being blacklisted so it HAS to be discussed before allowing re-addition.
    I here enforce that by asking you to ask for whitelisting for each individual link you want to add, and make a case for each page where you want that. Note that I will sanction hammering of the discussion for whitelisting page (blocks or other manners), and that will just result in blanket refusal to cooperate (i.e. blanket denial of whitelisting requests, whether there would be merit to whitelist or not). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    leadelaria.com

    leadelaria.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

    Official site of Lea DeLaria, not spam. Included in her bio via d: (the old official site just redirects to the new domain). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Koavf: minus Removed from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Blacklisted in 2012 as fake official site. Looks like current register is from 2015, but ownership is hidden. Going to AGF on this one. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    cubic-zirconia-cz-platinum-jewelry.com

    Upon trying to use https://www.cubic-zirconia-cz-platinum-jewelry.com/blog/history_of_blood_diamonds/ as a reference, I'm denied on the premise that \bjewelry\.com\b is in the blacklist. I don't know the reasoning for the \b and I don't know what conventions you're trying to follow here, so should that entry be edited, or the longer domain added to the whitelist?Googol30 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Googol30: likely the latter, unless it was intended (in which case we can still consider to whitelist the precise link). Please request for whitelisting in the way outlined there. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instructions

    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

    Protected edit request

    On page MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008, if you click on "Submit an edit request", instead of taking you to a normal edit request submission, it takes you to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. This needs to be fixed.

    Separately, to fix numerous lint errors, please replace MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008 with what is now at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008/sandbox, but please make the following two additional changes: On these two lines, remove the start comment (<!--) and end comment (-->) markup:

    check: <!-- [http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch?p=http%3A%2F%2Fbiologicalworld.com&bwm=i&bwmo=d&bwmf=s Links from Wikipedia] -->

    <!-- [http://www.ukmix.org/forums/ UKMIX Forums] -->

    I was not permitted to save with these links active; I assume admins can override. Doing this will yield the same page appearance, but without the lint. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=845381913"