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
→bmihealthcare.co.uk: + link summary, + 2 c
→Proposed additions: Request blacklisting of modernmogul.co.uk
Line 132: Line 132:
Link sets off malicious website warnings. As discussed at [[User Talk:Gab4gab]]. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]]<sup>[[User talk:RhinosF1|(chat)]]</sup><small><sub>[[User:RhinosF1/StatusMonitor|(status)]][[Special:Contributions/RhinosF1|(contribs)]]</sub></small> 15:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Link sets off malicious website warnings. As discussed at [[User Talk:Gab4gab]]. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]]<sup>[[User talk:RhinosF1|(chat)]]</sup><small><sub>[[User:RhinosF1/StatusMonitor|(status)]][[Special:Contributions/RhinosF1|(contribs)]]</sub></small> 15:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
::Please read Gab4Gab's talk page and respond to the help request there as well when actioning this report. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]]<sup>[[User talk:RhinosF1|(chat)]]</sup><small><sub>[[User:RhinosF1/StatusMonitor|(status)]][[Special:Contributions/RhinosF1|(contribs)]]</sub></small> 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
::Please read Gab4Gab's talk page and respond to the help request there as well when actioning this report. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]]<sup>[[User talk:RhinosF1|(chat)]]</sup><small><sub>[[User:RhinosF1/StatusMonitor|(status)]][[Special:Contributions/RhinosF1|(contribs)]]</sub></small> 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

== modernmogul.co.uk ==
*{{Link summary|modernmogul.co.uk}}
This site contains numerous copyright violations. Links to this site would violate [[WP:ELNEVER]], which prohibits links to copyright-infringing material. There is a discussion of this source at {{sectionlink|WP:RSN|Modern Mogul}}. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 03:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


= Proposed removals =
= Proposed removals =

Revision as of 03:07, 10 February 2019

"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 – 882584235 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    voxbal.com / newstread.com

    Spammed by

    and a few dubiuos SPAs.

    SEO and blog spam by advertising-only account (second final warning given). GermanJoe (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: you may want to snowball this (or call user:MER-C for help). Use 'whatlinkshere' on the userpages and linksummaries, you can poke {{usersummary}} as well to get userreports).
    Related:
    links
    users
    I'm sure there is more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be some significant cross-connections or these are simply various SEOs using the same crappy ressources. But I am really not that good/experienced in evaluating more complex schemes and professional larger spammer groups (and lack eventual admin details from deleted data and blocks). @MER-C: would you mind taking a look please? Of course I'll help whereever possible. GermanJoe (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    +1. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    +3 - These 3 may or may not be related, but there is a noticeable overlap in IT-related product and company articles with the previous spammers. Found them while checking Redmi with voxbal.blogspot.com spam. Either way, additional spam domains worth checking (the latter two still active). GermanJoe (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, moving house this weekend, not really available until Tuesday. MER-C 21:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No worries, for now I have cleaned up all involved domains (as listed so far) and created a few more COIBot reports. GermanJoe (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    scoopearth.com

    Spammed by various dynamic IPs and misused for COI-editing. A new PR platform for startups with user-submitted stories - no encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    cn.qihua.host

    cn.qihua.host: 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

     Done Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    antrukandamugam.wordpress.com

    antrukandamugam.wordpress.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

    bestdiabeticmealplans.com

    Advertisement for diabetic meal product(s), not a reliable source, not useful for the encyclopedia as external link either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @ToBeFree: plus Added to SBL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    earnmoneyonline-2019.blogspot.com

    Spammed to multiple articles by multiple IPs. -LiberatorG (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @LiberatorG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ebolaoutbreakmap.com

    Noticed at ANI, this looks like a permanent blacklist will achieve more than regular blocks. I see no good reason why this fringe website would be used as a reference. -- Luk talk 12:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Luk: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    *bng.com

    Per their user page, they run all of these. Working on removing links now. Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: Anything against blacklisting bng\.com/b (that is, everything ending in bng.com, also those that are not above?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I don't, but I didn't search for any collateral from a broad entry. Ravensfire (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    informationcradle.com

    This site uses scraped content from other sites. Links to this site would violate WP:ELNEVER, which prohibits links to copyright-infringing material. There is a discussion of this source at WP:RSN § informationcradle.com. — Newslinger talk 11:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    allbloggersden.com

    Dead link spam for a product review blog. Continued after "only warning" - no encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    rkmissionbaranagar.org

    Link sets off malicious website warnings. As discussed at User Talk:Gab4gab. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 15:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read Gab4Gab's talk page and respond to the help request there as well when actioning this report. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    modernmogul.co.uk

    This site contains numerous copyright violations. Links to this site would violate WP:ELNEVER, which prohibits links to copyright-infringing material. There is a discussion of this source at WP:RSN § Modern Mogul. — Newslinger talk 03:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    wizcase

    Studies on our site published by spammers in places that were not supposed to be published or not in the way we would like it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.149.207 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @37.26.149.207: no Declined, de-listing requests by site owners are generally not honoured. Wikipedia is not here to protect your site, and the blacklist only exists to protect Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Totally agree, this is not something we initiated or asked. Spammers/competitors seem to have done this to hurt our reputation here. We would be happy if you can take us out of the list. We will follow Wikipedia on a weekly basis to avoid such problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.149.207 (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @37.26.149.207: '.. this is not something we initiated or asked. Spammers/competitors seem to have done this ..' - that suggests that you had no control over this action happening, and that you have no way of stopping unwanted additions to Wikipedia. And that means, that we still need to protect Wikipedia. As seen from the reports (use of multiple usernames and IPs) the only way to stop this is to keep it on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra:I would like to please have another chance for my site. This time it was not my fault. And I'll monitor things better from now on.

    @37.26.149.207: no Declined. No credible reason given for removal, spamming is acknowledged, there's no evidence this would be a credible source per our guidelines and we typically do not remove websites at the request of their owners, especially when the request clearly indicates an intent to try to get links on Wikipedia. --Guy (Help!) 13:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: I received an alert from one of my tools that my website is mentioned on Wikipedia, I was very surprised and happy because it was not something we were doing. I was more surprised to discover that the site is blacklisted on something we didn't do. That's why I'm trying to write here and get second chance.

    I think we understand your perspective. Now please understand ours: there is no reason within our normal procedures to even consider removing this. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG:Thanks Guy, what's the solution of Wikipedia in this case?

    No solution is needed, as there is no problem for Wikipedia to address. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: Guy, what can I do?

    Go about your business and forget about it. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: Guy, I would like to know what can I do to get out this site of the list. This is not done by the team, this was done by competitors or spammers. Is there anything you can do/check to help me?

    Guy already answered you. Go about your business and forget about it. From Wikipedia's perspective, there is no problem to solve. We don't de-list sites at the request of site owners, period. If a trusted, high-volume contributor requests that it be de-listed, we will consider it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    .guru TLD

    I am the creator of the soaring weather forecast site www.meteo.guru and when trying to add a link to it on my own user page, I was very surprised to find out that the whole .guru TLD was blacklisted. I can definitely live without having that link, but I was just curious what was the rationale for blacklisting a whole TLD? Especially since I decided to host my site in it. Mmom (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mmom: at the time of blacklisting the number of spammed websites with a .guru tld by far outnumbered the 1 or 2 useful sites on that tld that were there. The ones that are of use to content of Wikipedia are whitelisted, and that has only shown needed a couple of times since blacklisting. At the moment, I don't think this should be delisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Defer to Whitelist for consideration of whitelisting specific pages, not the whole TLD. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    econlib.org

    econlib.org: 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 is a well-known site on economics and is full of useful content on economics, including the Concise Encylopedia of Economics. The CEE has contributions from respected economists, some of whom are Nobel Prize Winners, and is a go-to reference for many topics.

    The site's "About us" page has an overview of the site's resources.

    It appears that this link was caught up in a sweep of links to immigration legal services sites that were added by User:Vipul. This site is not about immigration (it does have articles on the economics of immigration) and doesn't offer legal services.

    This is my first Wikipedia edit, so I'm not an expert on the tools that Wikipedia uses to detect link spam, but I did scan the English linksearch and it looks reasonable to me. I discovered that this link was blacklisted while reading Direct tax. The use there seems on-topic.

    Glenn.ammons (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Glenn.ammons: no Declined, much of the material is replaceable (and other parts cab be whitelisted). No, it is not 'caught up', it was part of the paid-editing scheme (or at least obviously too close for comfort, Vipul has a conflict of interest here).  Defer to Whitelist for specific links for a specific use where can be shown that there is no replacement possible. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What Beetstra said. Also bear in mind that it's run by a libertarian think-tank so not a reliable source in general. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, the reason for addition of any website to the spam blacklist is that the website is being repeatedly and inappropriately inserted over multiple articles; it is my understanding that that case was made at the time this site was blacklisted. It has nothing to do with whether the website is run by a libertarian think-tank any more than it if it was run by a liberal think-tank, and it is inappropriate to imply that Wikipedia blacklists websites because of their political leanings. I have a great deal of difficulty thinking of *any* reference source we use on this project that is truly neutral and has no "leanings" in any direction. This list isn't for reference sources that have political leanings - it is for websites that are being spammed onto Wikipedia. Please reconsider your words. Risker (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think you both should defer to an independent review of your decisions to blacklist/maintain blacklisting of this domain. This is the standard I would expect of administrators. It would be unacceptable for the administrator who deleted an article to also close the deletion review, and it is no more appropriate for the administrator who has already refused on more than one occasion to delist a domain to be the one assessing a new request. Let someone else render the decision here, and they should look at the multiple discussions of this domain, which go back to March 2017 (I counted and read at least five). Risker (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Risker: I do agree that that would be better ... but by now you would have run out of knowledgeable editors to review these cases and hence nothing would be done. Or a neutral suggestion to decline (a !vote, if you wish) will have the same result, nothing will be done. Thirdly, if you block an editor you either have to give blanket permission to unblock any editor you block, or you should be consulted before I unblock said editor.
    Point is, that spam where there is a link to paid editing should never be removed (I can show you cases where editors are spamming for timespans of 10 years, they will continue, it pays there bills, they were here to pay their bills in the first place). I understand your touching on WP:INVOLVED, my defense basically is that removal will almost surely result in reoccurance of damage to Wikipedia and that therefore 'action' is allowed (WP:SNOW and such) Next, a no Declined is not a closure of the discussion (as you see here; these discussions are not really closed, people can come with counterarguments), other admins can review and override. (this noot really the place for this discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Risker: What we know for certain is that if it was removed from the blacklist, the link stuffing would resume. It was spammed, but in addition to being spammed it was also widely abused by POV-pushers, using it as a "source" for out of copyright materials, which are hosted there with a wrapper of libertarian propaganda. Our articles on economics have serious problems of ideological warfare, and this site was one of the weapons in that war, along with excessive citations to minor far-right economists as if their opinion were objective fact, and the like. Blacklisting was righteous due to spamming. Removal form the blacklist will degrade Wikipedia for other reasons, not just spamming. And to be clear, the same applies to far left think-tanks as well (there was a Marxist equivalent also spammed, which I cleaned out).
    This blacklist discussion is for abuse, and includes the citation blacklist, which absolutely is used for non-spam abuse. But I do feel that the term "spam blacklist" is a problem - it is a technical measure we can use to control abuse, inclusion on the list actually offends some site owners who are otherwise understanding about being on the list - if they did not spam the link they accept our decision but are unhappy with being identified as spammers. I think our use of blacklists should be subject to a wider discussion, and I would not be opposed to some sites (including this one) being moved to edit filters instead, but I don't know how expensive that is. There's virtually no review of existing blacklisted sites and it is entirely possible that great swathes of the blacklist might be redundant by now. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note1: renaming of this page to a more applicable name (as well as converting to a more fine-grained system) is an open ticket on Phabricator for years (dating well into the Bugzilla time) (by the way, it is a simple config change ...). There is a lot of material on these lists that have never been spammed/COI-added (and hence is not spam by any of Wikipedia's definition), but are subject to continuous (attempts to) abuse up to a level that the only solution is blacklisting (this page is not one of those).
    Note2: on meta, a regular cleanup is performed - anything that has not been attempted to be added on any wiki and is not a standard term/redirect site is purged. I think that we could do a similar exercise here on sites which have not been attempts to addition in the last 5 years, or for which we cannot find suspect additions in the last 3 years could be removed (I personally tend to be lenient on those, even while knowing that some organisations have been spamming us for years).
    And Note3: Except for the self-published Encyclopedia, practically ALL of the work that they host is in the public domain, and much of it is available in full text on wikisource and/or available in full text on the website of any major library (public libraries, university libraries). The Encyclopedia has been whitelisted, for all other work, until now, we have found alternatives - exact copies (I will leave it up to others to perform the exercise of why econlib is high on the Google ranking when looking for full texts of old economic works). At that point, it becomes a calculation of risk: we know that the material is largely replaceable, so do we open up this website again so that people can link to this specific copy of the high-ranking work but where we know that people closely related with the website (and who are admitted editors who create articles for payment) can come back and continue/restart the promotion (they were paid to edit - it pays their bills) vs. pointing users to (and/or helping them find) the existing alternatives for the source (and if that really does not exist, whitelist that specific document). Seen the continuous uncontrolled influx of spam I prefer to keep old spammers at bay (with an occasional (and in my case generally prompt) action in cases of whitelisting requests) and clear/stop out the current influx, vs. having to loose time on cleanup of this site ánd the current influx (and knowing that we can't blacklist the stuff again, whatever the abuse). When we get a significant influx of people helping to clear out the current influx of spam so we have at least a feeling of status quo, then we can entertain to de-list some of the sites. Until then: here you have one editor with EXACTLY ONE edit who requests, the advice of 2 experienced editors (especially in this field) to not de-list, do you really think we should go on with a !vote? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    PV Magazine

    pv-magazine.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

    As far as I can tell this site has been blacklisted since 2011. I have no connection to it and no vested interest. Occasionally I would like to cite their short articles so could they be removed from the list as perhaps they have served enough time there?

    Chidgk1 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chidgk1: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain, but note that a lot of the material on this site is regurgitated (aggregated) from the original (basically this is a primary source for most information, it is almost exclusively scraping information from primary sources and rewrites it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: This is the first time I have requested a site removed from the blacklist. I looked at the link above but perhaps I am looking in the wrong place: so far I have not been able to find any spamming attempts regarding this site since 2011.
    @Beetstra: Regarding aggregating from the original: for example in the article I was going to cite they quoted "data published by Turkey’s Electricity Transmission Company (TEIAS)" regarding the permits TEIAS had issued but then commented critically on the TEIAS data that "there are relatively few such permits still active going into 2019." which presumably TEIAS did not write if they even issued a press release in English. So although it is true that they have used info from several sources in the article I feel they have done some useful synthesis and analysis.
    I realise you guys are busy doing useful anti-spam work but would removing this site from the blacklist really risk a lot of spamming? I doubt many editors will spend time requesting whitelisting each time they wish to cite this site.Chidgk1 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chidgk1: You are asking for an article on pv-magazine, and now use a reference from 'finanznachrichten.de'. So there is an alternative to pv-magazine? TEIAS may have that information still on the website, and I am not sure if pv-magazine's analysis 'there are relatively few such permits still active going into 2019' is reliable as most of the other information is scraped. I can only assume that they did the proper research to make that statement.
    Regarding that you did not find any spamming attempts - obvious, it is blacklisted.
    Regarding 'risk of spam' - since it is blacklisted it is relatively difficult to see whether it is still spammed or not, which makes any evaluation on whether it is a risk or not rather difficult.
    What we find is that generally people find other sources to back up their information, instead of whitelisting. De-blacklisting as a reason to avoid having to ask for whitelisting is a way of opening floodgates, and using that reason as a reason for a lack of whitelisting requests is negated by a lack of serious attempted additions on the other hand. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Don't we have some sort of query tool that shows logged attempts at spamming a particular blacklisted domain? I could swear somebody once mentioned such a thing. If not, it would be a useful thing to have. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anachronist: I am not aware of this tool, but if it exists (or when created) it should be built into our {{LinkSummary}} templates (the reverse, looking at attempts by editor is possible). IIRC, pv-magazine is part of a larger group of sites (check; clear COI-sockpuppet spamming), and we should consider to look for the other sites (if there are) as well in that query. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: 'finanznachrichten.de' copied the article (with attribution) from 'pv-magazine'. Although TEIAS has English pages on its website unfortunately once one drills down through the English menus (for example the drop down "reports") the details are often only in Turkish. Although I could look for the data in Turkish and cite that if I found it I thought readers of English Wikipedia might prefer an English cite. I agree with your point that it is difficult to evaluate whether spamming would recur if the site was removed from the blacklist. So as I see that several others have requested its removal from the list and the editor has changed since 2011 might it be possible to delist it for, say, a few weeks and then review the situation? If spamming recurred it could easily be blacklisted again I presume. I realise this is extra work for you but after all it has been 8 years since the spamming occurred and PV is a very important subject. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chidgk1: that the original text is only available in Turkish is not a reason not to use it as a source .. the point of verifiability is, IMHO, that the statements can be verified to a reliable source (depending on the type of info, preferably secondary but for certain material primary is fine). That a source is then behind a paywall, in Turkish, or only available as a book in a library in Tibet is not necessarily a problem: you can always ask someone who has paid/can translate/lives in Tibet to verify the information - that you cannot check the reference does not necessarily make a statement untrue. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    bmihealthcare.co.uk

    I was surprised to find this blocklisted, as BMI Healthcare is a reputable company that has been in business for many years. I wanted to add it as a citation at Milton Keynes#Hospitals. Looking back at the history, it was blocklisted in July 2015, as part of a sockpuppet investigation. It looks to me like collateral damage. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Promotional links for knee surgery and cancer surgery were systematically spammed by several Orangemoody-related accounts (see COIBot report). I don't see how blacklisting as a perfectly reasonable reaction to verifiable spamming during a massive coordinated campaign could be considered "collateral". The company might be reputable, but apparently the same can't be said about their PR department. But of course required specific source links for valid encyclopedic information can be whitelisted. GermanJoe (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2019 (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=882584235"