Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2003:c7:e729:e701:9132:3da0:d77d:8b92 (talk) at 14:20, 3 June 2018 (→‎klassik-resampled.de). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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 – 844226399 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]

    musiqclub.in

    Site being slowly spammed by IPv6 editor. This isn't a reliable source, so easier just to close the door on the spam. Ravensfire (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IPV6 continues (added) plus IPv4 address (added). Ravensfire (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravensfire: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. Lets issue some warnings. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me - thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    facebook.com/freemasonrywatch

    FreemasonryWatch is already on the blacklist. This particular variation is being edit warred into multiple articles by Lastman8-12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). I don't know for sure if it qualifies under the same reasons the original link was blocked for. (I know the link summary template doesn't take slashes, sorry...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    bskud.com

    Repeated spamming under the pretext of adding PIN codes to articles. User(s) have been warned multiple times over the course of five months but they seem to be IP hopping and reverting to the same behaviour. —Gazoth (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    223.230.64.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    More spamming from a new anon editor. See first and second diffs. —Gazoth (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gazoth: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 10:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    kubavize.com

    IP added links today to many articles as external links to a PBS documentary, but there is no documentary, only these Turkish tour operators' websites. IP already blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    cachdieutrimuntrungca.com

    This group of users spam the link in question and another link to LinkedIn articles. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mys 721tx: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    atoall.com

    most recently spammed by

    but concerns and spam activities date back to 2010 (see also old history of poke report). No encyclopedic usage, recurring spam is likely. GermanJoe (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Slipped through, it seems I earlier suggested to meta blacklist related stuff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:42, 26 May 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]

    Proposed removals

    Safer-networking.com

    Trying to adding the link to the site for BonziBuddy article for missing citations. It appears to doesn’t have any spams.—Ijoe2003 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It was implicated in phishing attacks back in 2009.  Defer to Whitelist to request whitelisting of a specfic page on that site (not the home page). We won't delist the whole site. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    mobilespecs.net/phone/Vivo/Vivo_V2.html

    I was using this site to research the Vivo V2, but it said it was blacklisted. I don't understand how it is spam. EDG 543 (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @EDG 543: you were able to link it in the header, it is not blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It turns out you were adding:

    I need to have a look at this one. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @EDG 543: regard8ng the maxabout site: no Declined. That site is made to be spam, and was spammed, there should be better alternatives (and I doubt that this site is a reliable source). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Whoops. Sorry about the mix-up. Thank you for reviewing the website. EDG 543 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    zunzun.com

    zunzun.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 zunzun.com is an open-source web application that provides tools for curve fitting. The owner of the website has dedicated his time and knowledge to provide a free, open source, advanced and easy-to-use web application that is benefiting students, engineers, researchers and many others as shown on his google-group and bitbucket repository (links for both are available on the website). I'm just a user of the website among many people in my field, and I believe the value of zunzun should be appreciated. Please visit the website, google group, and repository to better understand how useful this website to the community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr-7alawa (talk • contribs)

    no Declined. Massively spammed by a large number of IPs. Warnings were not heeded, warnings were blanked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 14:07, 3 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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=844226399"