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
+ 2 convenience sections
Line 131: Line 131:


[[user:GermanJoe]] split these out so I can script blacklist only the top domainsif I decideto do so. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 15:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
[[user:GermanJoe]] split these out so I can script blacklist only the top domainsif I decideto do so. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 15:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

== com-maldives.com ==
* {{LinkSummary|com-maldives.com}}

Spamming of various sub domains, continued after final warning. See also [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Travel site spam]] for more details. [[User:GermanJoe|GermanJoe]] ([[User talk:GermanJoe|talk]]) 15:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

== com-seychelles.com ==
* {{LinkSummary|com-seychelles.com}}

Spamming of various sub domains, continued after final warning. See also [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Travel site spam]] for more details. [[User:GermanJoe|GermanJoe]] ([[User talk:GermanJoe|talk]]) 15:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


= Proposed removals =
= Proposed removals =

Revision as of 15:52, 6 August 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 – 853722671 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    falstad.com

    Long-term spamming across multiple articles recently hit the acute phase on Doppler effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has now been protected to stop the link spam. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Brought here for logging, plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 11:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What do You mean Link spam? 176.23.194.99 (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @176.23.194.99: See the warnings left to the numerous editors who were adding this. Unwanted link, reverted over and over, warnings not heeded, blacklisting supported. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I didn't come here from the Doppler effect but from the 555 Timer IC, where a link to that side was removed after being a part of the article since 2004, and since no good reason why that link had to go was given, I wanted to put it back but could not, so I cam here. the link was to a simulation of a 555 which was really useful when teaching young people about the 555. 176.23.194.99 (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    watchotc.com

    No encyclopedic use, spam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    bkacontent.com

    WP:UGC, content farm.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @SMcCandlish: .. this would be pre-emptive? I don't see any additions .. We generally don't blacklist for these reasons ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't diff one; it's a self-report. I was about to add one of their articles as an interim low-quality blog source for something non-controversial, had a suspicion, and quickly figured out it's a UGC linkfarm, and stopped myself. They have a lot of articles on misc. topics, so it'll happen eventually. If it can't be pre-emptive, well, okay. I don't really spend any time here, so I don't know the local-consensus culture on this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: thanks for the clarification. We'll see this report on first abuse/gross misuse and then will be faster in decision making. En.wikipedia and meta basically need to see abuse/gross misuse before blacklisting, with as only exception redirect sites, which are the only ones we blacklist pre-emptively. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hokay dokay. But, hey, I was only almost a gross abuser. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, you were the only one. Blacklist instructions say that blocking should be tried first :-). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    debtsupportline.com

    Credit company, spammed by an anonymous user over 2 days. There's no encyclopedic value. -- Luk talk 09:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have spammed more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Three more, seem related. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Luk: This is going to be fun. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Luk: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Nice catch, thanks! -- Luk talk 22:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    credenceresearch.com

    Being spammed in, even this morning. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    futureindustryinsight.com

    IP in credenceresearch report above has just begun doing this one. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: not 'just begun', for months already: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    9 months of spamming, now blocked for a year:

    links
    user


    checking further. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    huvafenfushi.com-maldives.com (+2)

    Spamming after final warning on previous occasions (the spammer uses a dynamic IP, but that's not our problem). See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Travel site spam for more details. @Beetstra: would it be possible to blacklist "*.com-maldives.com" and "*.com-seychelles.com", or is the risk of collateral damage too high? No idea, if any legitimate site would use such a pattern. GermanJoe (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    top domains

    user:GermanJoe split these out so I can script blacklist only the top domainsif I decideto do so. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    com-maldives.com

    Spamming of various sub domains, continued after final warning. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Travel site spam for more details. GermanJoe (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    com-seychelles.com

    Spamming of various sub domains, continued after final warning. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Travel site spam for more details. GermanJoe (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    twitter.com/search

    twitter.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

    • twitter.com/search

    I would be very interest to know why this has been blacklisted. I have found myself wanting to link a twitter search in talk pages, but it always triggers the protection filter. Could it at least be allowed in talk pages and the user namespace? - Radiphus 17:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Radiphus: Unfortunately that is technically impossible - the spam blacklist works everywhere (with upgrades to change it requested to WMF for years now). What is the reason this search capability is so hard needed on talkpages .. can't you just search for things on Twitter and give the result that you need? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It would just be faster and easier to have a link to an advanced search in an article's talk page, instead of requiring from others to do it by themselves. Verified social media accounts are often used as reliable sources and this could help involved editors to keep up with new info on specific subjects. - Radiphus 18:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Radiphus: Can you show me some examples of those that are currently in use on a talkpage? (a possible work-around that I can think of is creating a custom search engine on google, get that one whitelisted, and create a namespace-specific template to include such searches on talkpages). I've been looking, and this functionality was globally abused by spambots and these links should really never appear in mainspace. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean examples like these? I might look into the CSE thing, though i don't how this works or if it would be fit for its purpose. Thanks anyway. - Radiphus 19:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Radiphus: (edit conflict) Yes, those are the ones I mean. Hmmm .. that bloody grey area between abuse on one side, and disabling discussion on the other .. Seen how it is used, I indeed doubt that google's CSE will fit the purpose of this type of discussions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • search results are not reliable sources in en-WP per #9 on WP:ELNO and so this is appropriately on the blacklist. User:Radiphus you should never be using any sort of search as citation in en-WP and per WP:PRIMARY we should be using twitter as a source rarely and only with great care. And doing it on twitter which is social media and almost all about some current events is driving content toward news and gossip, and at least on en-WP what we do is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP.
    Please do not remove this from the spam list. Please no. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    @Jytdog: I never said that a list of search results would be a reliable source. I said that tweets from verified accounts are often used as reliable sources on Wikipedia, and search links on talk pages would help editors find such tweets more easily. - Radiphus 19:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Less twitter not more. We are not a gossip or news site. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So, all of these is gossip for you? - Radiphus 19:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    People can use, and do use, their editing privileges in all kinds of ways, many of them off-mission. Please review WP:NOT. I will not reply here again. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you are saying and this was not a productive discussion. - Radiphus 19:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: (edit conflict) We are talking here about use on talkpages, which is something different. No-one is talking about using these in mainspace, let alone as references or external links. Twitter feeds are allowed as the only official website of a subject per WP:ELOFFICIAL, and specific tweets (not feeds) make sometimes appropriate references. Discussion on talkpages about (finding those) is appropriate in all cases. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC):[reply]
    I understand that and have redacted above to clarify since I obviously wrote it in a way that confused both of you. There is no good reason to remove this from the blacklist. Search results are not reliable sources (so the blacklist is appropriate with respect to that) and we should not be doing things to make it even easier for people to be citing twitter which is a primary source and generally oriented to gossip and recent events. Is that more clear? Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLACKLIST notes that blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers. Would XLinkBot be a more appropriate way to deal with this functionality being abused by spambots? I believe a tracking category could also be created (i don't know how) that will list all pages in mainspace that include Twitter search links, and it could be used for maintenance purposes. - Radiphus 05:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Radiphus: These are spambots, they do not care about XLinkBot, they will continue until they get blocked and/or switch IP/account. At the speed some spambots work, they may even be faster than XLinkBot can revert them (XLinkBot takes a handful of seconds to do all the checks). They also do not care where they spam, it does not have to be mainspace, they will try to insert their links everywhere (it may have been talk namespace in the first place). They will NOT stop. Spamming pays their bills. I've just blacklisted a website that is a copy of a website that was originally blacklisted - they bought other webspace to be able to spam and earn money. I blacklisted 7 redirect domains for redirects to another blacklisted site, they keep finding redirect sites so they can spam their links. On another set, we've had spambots hammering our blacklists with hundreds of attempted edits, hoping that they find domains that we did not blacklist yet.
    I know it is a nuisance, but seen the number of active discussions with these links I don't think that that nuisance is in any way proportional to the amount of nuisance that reverting spambots could cause. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks for explaining that to me. - Radiphus 06:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    semper-excelsius.com

    semper-excelsius.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

    This website is blocked (for reasons I do not know). It has good analysis of catholic faith and morals. I would like to use it as a reference. Could you please unblock it? Stijn Calle (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Stijn Calle: http://semper-excelsius.com does not seem to be blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the technical aspect, blogs are generally not considered reliable sources or suitable external links for Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=853722671"