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
→‎Proposed additions: Nazi Germany fanboi sites
adding googletrendingnews.com
Line 151: Line 151:


These three sites are basically SPS fanboi/user forum sites relating to Nazi Germany, and are regularly used to cite all sorts of major and minor things on a large number of articles. Currently, some editors (like me) do regular culls to remove these links, but a global approach seems to be in order. I asked about what to do about them at the Village pump (policy) page, and they directed me here. Perhaps an edit filter would be a better way of approaching this, but basically I think it would be in the interests of WP to stop people citing from them. How best to do that is the question. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 09:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
These three sites are basically SPS fanboi/user forum sites relating to Nazi Germany, and are regularly used to cite all sorts of major and minor things on a large number of articles. Currently, some editors (like me) do regular culls to remove these links, but a global approach seems to be in order. I asked about what to do about them at the Village pump (policy) page, and they directed me here. Perhaps an edit filter would be a better way of approaching this, but basically I think it would be in the interests of WP to stop people citing from them. How best to do that is the question. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 09:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

==googletrendingnews.com==
*{{Link summary|googletrendingnews.com}}
*{{User summary|Ravisankarjagarwal}}
*{{IPSummary|2405:205:140B:E18C:6123:62EB:79C8:8569}}
*{{IPSummary|2405:205:1404:42DB:81C1:5F03:CAFE:FDC8}}

More Indian film site spam, this one with a name that would probably get google's attention. Spammed by only one user, and I suspect the two IP's are also the same person. They've been warned and continued to spam and the IP edits make me suspect a user block won't stop this. <b>[[User:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 15:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


= Proposed removals =
= Proposed removals =

Revision as of 15:46, 10 March 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 – 887096570 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    mangatensei.com

    mangatensei.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 site is hosting pirated manga scanlations that was recently spammed by 139.195.190.69.--十八 12:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Juhachi: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    docdroid.net

    docdroid.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

    This is pretty much all copyright violating uploaded papers and "leaked" sources. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Natureium: Yup. Systematic WP:LINKVIO - not strictly spam but can't be linked anywhere on Wikipedia so the blacklist is good for this purpose. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 21:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Predatory journals

    I monitor additions of citations to predatory open access journals and other unreliable sources. There is an edit filter, but this does not seem to have meaningfully slowed the tide. Many are added by IPs that geolocate to the institutions of the study authors, others are added in good faith. A small number are very disreputable, associated with long-term WP:REFSPAM or other abuse.

    I would like to consider blacklisting the following repeat offenders:

    At the very least these should be on the reference revert list, but actually they should just be blacklisted, they are a source of long term and ongoing abuse, especially OMICS. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Support blacklisting those. There are more, but those are bad. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I've cleaned everything save for [2]. There's just too many of them for me to do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned up all the non-bio non-profile mainspace ones from that list (there were at least 30 of them) as well as from a few drafts. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: for future evidence, can you show some clearly COI addition diffs for each of these (I am sure we will get requests with 'this was not spammed, show me the abuse'). And in future, I would suggest that when you encounter the second COI editor who spams their own articles in a predatory journal to just blacklist the whole journal. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. It's not a two minute job, but I will collect it. You have to wade through past revisions, and in some cases weed out false positives. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't just COI though, it's often good faith additions because for FUTON effects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. And I am sure have seen instances where an attempt to link by DOI was stopped by the edit filter and a URL substituted. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the spam-blacklist and the reasons to blacklist, the issue mainly is 'abuse'. Good-faith additions do not count there (and I think the good-faith additions outnumber the bad ones). My point therefore was to have some evidence of the abuse of each and have that documented properly. That assists us in the defense of this decision, and for future cases we can point to this as in 'look, it is the same as there'. Aligns a bit with the decision not to blacklist on 'it is not a reliable source in any form', except if there is a proper decision on WP:RSN, blacklisting the major porn sites, and blacklisting redirect sites on site (or even before that) because of past cases of abuse of similar. None of these were 'spammed' in the classical sense, it is all stopping abuse (or gross misuse) there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, feel free to move to Special:AbuseFilter/891 or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not working, as the logs show. We would need to up it to enforce not warn I think. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Were those on the edit filter before? Because the edit filter seems mostly DOI based, rather than URL based. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Although personally for those, they're so bad that it's not a MDPI or Frontiers cases of well they're not across the board awful, so the blacklist is the best option. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I call intentionally citing ones' own work quickly 'abuse' (especially if that is the majority of ones' edits), which for a predatory open access journal is then quickly a reason to blacklist. Moreover, I would want to see how many of these would pass a serious RSN discussion regarding their general reliability ..
    I would put all in the edit filter for detection (they are by definition questionable), and if there is any abuse, you document a handful of diffs/users, and blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    taxattorneyoc.com

    These two accounts and some others I reverted a while ago have been spamming this site. Ravensfire (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 08:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    adultfriendfinder.network

    Affiliate link for Adult FriendFinder that is often added to the article; I've also seen it on Wikidata and other Wikipedias. Trivialist (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    dnbnumber.com

    Persistent link spamming of Data Universal Numbering System with this unofficial (and unnecessary) website. Several more IPs and usernames could likely be harvested from that article's history. —johndburger 14:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    glamourcenterfolds.com

    glamourcenterfolds.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

    Porn Site RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Per request at User_talk:208.107.143.166#Help_me! RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    first2fitness.com

    Spammed by

    Blacklisting this will probably impede half the spambots we currently get to see. —RainFall 08:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @RainFall: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    militarytime.site

    Spammed by the following, who have one edit each to add this site and no other edits at all:

    Going to the trouble to create a new user account for each edit suggest to me an automated system aimed at search engine optimization. The simplistic writing at the site suggest it may have been automatically generated. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    high5test.com

    high5test.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

    Spammed twice in a row, from different IP addresses, to StrengthsFinder here and here, with the implication that it's the place to go to find StrengthsFinder, so it's almost certainly some combination of an unauthorized copy of it, a malware site, or something that's neither but, then, doesn't belong and is simply spam. Largoplazo (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    theappstore.in

    Spammed by

    Spamming for an Indian app store, continued after only warning (deleted, see history of user talk). The editor also sporadically spams other languages, but the current main focus is en-Wiki. No encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Coupon site spam

    Repeated spamming for coupon sites by various IPs and single-usage accounts, continued after warnings and 1 block. No educational usage. GermanJoe (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazi Germany SPS/fanboi sites

    These three sites are basically SPS fanboi/user forum sites relating to Nazi Germany, and are regularly used to cite all sorts of major and minor things on a large number of articles. Currently, some editors (like me) do regular culls to remove these links, but a global approach seems to be in order. I asked about what to do about them at the Village pump (policy) page, and they directed me here. Perhaps an edit filter would be a better way of approaching this, but basically I think it would be in the interests of WP to stop people citing from them. How best to do that is the question. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    googletrendingnews.com

    More Indian film site spam, this one with a name that would probably get google's attention. Spammed by only one user, and I suspect the two IP's are also the same person. They've been warned and continued to spam and the IP edits make me suspect a user block won't stop this. Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    petition.parliament.uk

    I don't understand why the national government and parliament of the United Kingdom is blacklisted as a spam site, but when https://petition.parliament.uk or a link to a folder in it such as https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200968 is used as a reference then the blacklist warning appears.--BIL (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @BIL: because it (as most petition sites) its general use was for plain soapboxing ('vote for our good cause [here]'). Moreover, by far most of the use of petitions is as primary sourcing, and if something is relevant, then it is already substantially covered by secondary sourcing, making the need of the primary source often not needed. Some exceptions do exist (sometimes an (open) petition is the subject of a page, sometimes the only way of showing primary information is by using the petition). Those can be whitelisted ( Defer to Whitelist), but expect to be able to show that the petition is worth mentioning in the first place (i.e., independent secondary sourcing exists). De-listing is no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    academic-accelerator.com removal

    I would like to request a whitelisting of this domain in wikipedia.org. This website aims to construct complete journal database to assist academics on manuscript submission. The website collects and provides many important journal metrics such as Impact Factor, Acceptance Rate, Journal Research Hotspot, Keywords Trend, Review Speed, Revision Process, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomlasers (talk • contribs)

    To make edits like this [3]? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randomlasers: Rejected, bad faith request. --Dirk Beetstra [[User_Talk:|T]] C 16:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC）

    Dirk Beetstra I admit I did a stupid and wrong edit before. I won't do it again. Can you give me a chance? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomlasers (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. The alarming rate of spamming that domain supersedes a request to de-list so soon after blacklisting. What possible purpose would that link have? And what is your association with that domain? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AnachronistThanks for your kindly reply. I agree your decision. I did a wrong thing so I don't have any excuse. I will focus on the website content. And I will apply delist in the near future. I will continue contributing wiki content related to journal pages with RIGHT way. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomlasers (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    bestchange.com

    I want this site to be removed from the blacklist. I don't really know the reason why it was blocked on English wikipedia. I tried searching the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log to know who blocked it and the reason but it appears the site is not even in the log yet it reports being blacklisted or blocked from English Wikipedia.

    However, the info received from the bestchange.com company says that an unknown and inexperienced person started sharing bestchange.com affiliate link with 'referer' parameter all over Wikipedia hoping to get more funds from the company's affiliate programme. He or she hoped to get more traffic from the referred users. This resulted in bestchange.com getting blacklisted. The company has no hands in the spamming process. Uptill now, they don't know exactly who used the site on English Wikipedia.

    Bestchange.com is a specialized online e-currency exchange service that monitors rates for dozens of popular conversion pairs in near real-time and offers one-click access to lists of reliable e-currency exchangers capable of helping users complete their transaction quickly and efficiently.

    Please help me check the website and have it removed from the blacklist. Thanks Belmanga101 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Comment: the user has lodged a request at meta, and I have instructed them to ask for a local whitelist. Personally I am not trusting the innocence of this request as this user does not even have any other edits xwiki, and no evidence of having an edit blocked for a blacklisted url. I can see evidence of three attempts to locally add the link in the past month. One is a referring url by Prhmnk 19th Feb, which is why the block occurred in the first place; the second on 22 Feb in the recently created article by Meximmanu for the exchange and moved from a user's sandbox (note that translated from the Russian article, yet this editor has zero edits in ruWP), and a third attempt by Camentoogi on 26 Feb, starting an article in user sandbox and abandoned. If I was making any decision, it would be if the BestChange article is legitimate that we whitelist the domain temporarily, add the homepage url, then remove from the whietlist. I see little other value for the domain. The whole usage and request smells! — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note their affiliate program which decreases the desirability as being linked as a reliable source and the likelihood of good link addition. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Belmanga101: formally: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    vouchercodes.co.uk

    I'm trying to publish a page with links to this site on it, but keep getting blocked because it's similar to \bplusvouchercode\.co\.uk\b (this might be wrong, but I can't find any other reason that the page won't publish). Is it possible to remove the page in question from the English blacklist? Alternatively, is there a way for me to show that the link to vouchercodes.co.uk isn't spam and won't do any harm?

    I'm trying to link out from Wikipedia to the site in question, which is a reputable online voucher publisher. I'm not sure why it's being blacklisted, but there's potential for a lot of internal linking in the finished article if I can get it published. Thanks Taylor VoucherCodes (talk)

    no Declined - the site is blacklisted because Wikipedia as a general rule does not link to websites whose main function is to sell something; see WP:LINKSPAM. The main function of a "voucher codes" website is to drive traffic to retailers while generating advertising revenue for yourself; this is commercial activity and is not permitted on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    newspatrolling.com

    Newspatrolling.com has been blacklisted on Wikipedia and it is harming our reputation in the market. We are not connected to newspatrolling links posted on Wiki and these have been done by people not known to us. Wikipedia is a public domain (one of the biggest, most reputed and social platform) and our name in blacklist is harming our business interests. How can we be held responsible for actions of people who we don't know? If anyone posting spam, then their accounts should be blocked. Adding Newspatrolling.com in blacklist is creating negative perceptions about the company. This may even be an attempt by our competitors to spoil our name among our business clients.

    If you want, you can remove all newspatrolling.com links from Wikipedia. But, please, a humble request to remove Newspatrolling.com from blacklist, as it is causing irreparable loss to business reputation and that too without any of our fault.

    I would again like to reiterate that we have nothing to do with links posted on Wiki. It has been done by unknown people and we do not wish to be blacklisted for their actions. You can remove all traces of newspatrolling from Wiki, but our name should be removed from blacklist page, as it is causing significant loss of business reputation

    I can tell you right off the bat, as a non-administrator observation, that domains do not get removed from the blacklist as the result of a request by their owners. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. What Jéské Couriano said. --Guy (Help!) 19:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With about 40-50 IPs in several ranges spamming this site, it is clearly spammed. Editors have been sufficiently warned that this would happen, and apparently you have edited in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of use in adding a website that you are clearly involved with. Wikipedia is NOT a place to promote your website. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    beacon.org

    beacon.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

    Hello, This is the first time I've encountered this issue with an E/L, so it was a real surprise to learn that the website for a major book publisher would be subject to a spam-block. I was trying to post a link for a new bio about writer Lorraine Hansberry in the Further reading section of her article. I sure would like to know what the reason is for the spam-listing, or was there perhaps a mistake. Thanks. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anomalous+0: It certainly was not a mistake, this was spammed in 2012/2013 (and I read in a message that there were attempts also in the end of 2015). I am not sure yet if I am comfortable with wholesale removal, maybe a  Defer to Whitelist is better. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (It may even go further back: Special:Contributions/BeaconP. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again, thanks for the info. As I said, this is the first time I've encountered this issue when posting an E/L, so it's rather distressing (though not terribly surprising) to learn how big a problem spamming has become. Do you have any sense of who would have been responsible for the spamming? Also, are you aware of any other cases involving a major publishing house? Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anomalous+0: If someone with the username of BeaconP is involved in edits to Beacon publisher, then that suggests a COI (or a nasty Joe Jobber, though it seems unlikely that this is a competitor here). Yes, these things do happen more often, SEO is a serious business making money for companies. Companies either do it themselves, or hire external companies doing it for them. And that includes respective companies as well as startups. Most more respected companies do not come to Wikipedia (or their additions drown in the non-spammy ones ..), but some do.
    I have whitelisted links before for this site - if an established editor needs one for a specific need (generally a reference) then that is often done. Though, often with publishers the links can be replaced by DOIs or ISBN (or similar) which are more generic, not favouring a specific reseller or publisher. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. Much appreciated. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 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

    I'm baffled by why this site is blacklisted; it seems a high quality source of essays on economic topics, and has nicely edited copies of a large number of public domain economic texts having historical importance. My attention was drawn to this by the specific blacklisting of links to books and essays by William Stanley Jevons, a key figure in the nineteenth century marginalist revolution in economics.

    18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certainpersons (talk • contribs)

    • See many previous discussions about this site, i.e. here. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I review links in batches. Every singe time I do this, I find that almost without exception they are replaceable with more neutral links to the same content - usually Gutenberg or even Wikisource. Then there's the spamming. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Certainpersons: As per JzG, but than in a different order. This was spammed, people with a clear connection to the site (and related sites) were creating pages and spamming this site (and to top it off, there was a declaration that they were paid editors). On top of that, except for the self-published Encyclopedia, almost all of the material they host is in the public domain. That means that often even WikiSource has a copy available (in the case of s:Author:William Stanley Jevons, some of the material is), and that it is available in many libraries (from WikiSource most material is available in original form on archive.org). For the few rare occasions where material on econlib is really unique, whitelisting will suffice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    dnbnumber.com problems

    Hi there. Guy added dnbnumber dot com to the blacklist on March 6, and yet these two edits subsequently succeeded:

    Am I misunderstanding how the blacklist works? Thanks! —johndburger 22:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Johndburger: The link already exists in the same paragraph. It therefore doesn't count as an added link, and I suspect that's the reason it didn't hit the blacklist. I thought the presence of a blacklisted link prevented a save, but that behaviour seems to have changed since I last looked at it. If it's a spam link, existing instances should be removed from the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, got it - thanks! —johndburger 05:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johndburger: As Zzuuzz says. If the link is already there (i.e. if it duplicates) it does not trigger the blacklist. Similar, if a blacklisted link is on the page it does not prohibit other edits.
    As it is now blacklisted, all occurances should be either removed or whitelisted, as any edit damaging the link may result in problems later on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:17, 10 March 2019 (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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=887096570"