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 JzG (talk | contribs) at 08:31, 26 February 2019 (→‎taxattorneyoc.com: Added to Blacklist using SBHandler). 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 – 885154010 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    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]

    As mentioned in the linked discussion, InformationCradle.com also copies or closely paraphrases Wikipedia content (without attribution), making it a circular source. — Newslinger talk 13:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm commenting again because this section was due to be archived soon. If there's any more information required to process this request, I'll try to provide it. — Newslinger talk 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    mumbaikarboy.com

    All recent edits spamming this site, broad range of IP addresses and no redeeming qualities. Ravensfire (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    poecurrency.shop

    RMT site for in-game currency of the game Path of Exile. They have no encyclopaedic value as a citation and these site are against Term of use of the game. Matthew hk (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Matthew hk: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    wikifamous.com

    wikifamous.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

    A small nest of socks - cf Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Williams taylor - adding links to this site via citations, which, as the name suggests, is not a reliable source. Likely to be more socks as times passes. No legitimate reasons I can think of to link to this commercial site. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 22:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    mercola.com

    mercola.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 promotes pseudoscientific and fringe theories about medicine and methods to encourage alternative medicine and cannot be used as a reliable source (see Joseph Mercola for more information about this pseudocientific). In addition, it includes drug advertising. I request its addition to the blacklist. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's definitely not a reliable source, but that is generally not a reason for blacklisting. And if websites were blacklisted for including drug advertising, we'd probably have almost nothing left. Although there have been occassional attempts to use mercola.com as a reference, I'm not aware of any concerted effort at spamming; and in article space it is currently only used at Joseph Mercola. So I don't think there is really any problem that needs to be solved by blacklisting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisting it would save me a lot of time - I have removed thousands of links to this site. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mercola.com is pure shit. There's nothing worth citing to that source whatsover, save for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an endless supply of websites that are pure shit, but we don't need to worry about them unless they are spammed here. If mercola.com has been added thousands of times recently, then clearly my statement above about no problem needing to be solved is wrong. I used to see it appear on occasion, but can't recall seeing it any time recently.-- Ed (Edgar181) 00:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mercola.com is on XLinkBot's revert list. Does that not control the problem? -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It reduces it, but it doesn't control it. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    To me a reason for blacklisting on basis of reliability seems a bit thin, there is not much community discussion at WP:RSN (4 discussions, last two not about the site in general). So either ee agree on that here, or in an extensive discussion on RSN. Another option is to establish significant abuse.

    Re:'XLinkBot' .. it has been on there for over a year now, and here we have an independent report. It seems to be a problem, still. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Links spam in the article by separate users, seem websites competitive to each other but never heard (not the major real estate agent of HK, even they are , not appropriate as ext link). Not sure why 1997kB restored it also. Matthew hk (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite it did have an article about Spacious, but not sure why the external link was spammed to Gherveh Spacious Mosque in the past. Matthew hk (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, looks like I missed something, actually I rollbacked it from their contribution page, so missed that earlier addition. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthew hk and 1997kB: plus Added to spam blacklist. I wonder if it is worth to have a filter that can detect resurrection of years old accounts (numedits < 25, last edit is more than 2 years ago). On my way to WP:AF --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Everipedia (everipedia.org)

    I'm surprised that external links to Everipedia are still allowed (beyond whitelisted pages), since it is a self-published source that exclusively consists of user-generated content. Everipedia is also a fork of Wikipedia, which makes it a circular source.

    I've removed two promotional links to an Everipedia article (1 2). I don't see any valid use case for linking to Everipedia from Wikipedia articles, except in the Everipedia article itself.

    Note that everipedia.com and everipedia.net both redirect to everipedia.org. — Newslinger talk 14:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, something should be done about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes for sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    alexasetups.com

    alexasetups.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

    Spam only, no value as external link or reference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    nextincareer.com

    Spammed to multiple articles by multiple IPs/users despite warnings. --Muhandes (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    analystz.hk

    A website selling historical financial data and analyst tool, found spammed in HIBOR article. For historial rate of HIBOR, certainly there was better source available in the web. Matthew hk (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    intelligencenode.com

    Repeated spamming for a retail software site by various IPs despite multiple warnings. No encyclopedic usage (aside from the company's main article). GermanJoe (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "CTI Reviews" / "Cram101" / "facts101"

    These books such as this one[1] are machine build from Wikipedia. They do not provide proper attribution much of the time either.

    The issue is one of citogenesis. Working to remove these. Not sure if we have a way to blacklist them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just removed 40 or so instances of these sources being used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "ezproxy."

    • Regex requested to be blacklisted: \bezproxy\.

    Can we block ezprozy links? We have over a thousand used right now., see e.g. search-proquest-com.ezproxy.sl.nsw.gov.au/docview/157476108?accountid=13902

    Generally they are added by students and one needs a library at the exact library in question to open. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There are a lot of good faith additions that are unusable to anyone else. Beetstra, can you add this to the RBL? Or should we use an edit fulter? Guy (Help!) 20:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG and Doc James: I have an edit filter for these, set to warn and block. That is better, the we can explain what they have to do (custom warning). I'll try to get you the number in an hour or so. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG and Doc James: added 'ezproxy.' to Special:AbuseFilter/892. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Beetstra Okay so should it be blocking edits like this than?[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: When they save they get an error message (MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-proxy-link). If they then choose to ignore, the edit will be blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    mcaleadsworld.com

    Spamming for a marketing site by 4+ dynamic IPs. No encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    docmanager.co.in - additional spam sites

    Already blacklisted:

    Additional blog spam to advertise docmanager software. Multiple previous warnings ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 10:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    academic-accelerator.com

    academic-accelerator.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

    A bunch of IPs have been adding them as inappropriate refspam to academic journal articles. E.g. [3]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've cleaned up all links, but this is ongoing, at a rate of 5-10/day, from multiple IPs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [4]. There's just too many of them for me to do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG/help: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 26 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]

    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]

    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

    list of pages containing blacklisted items

    Is there a bot-maintained report of pages that currently contain blacklisted items? Or something similiar? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Headbomb: User:Cyberpower678's bot used to tag those pages with a template. I don't know if that is still being done (it was rather controversial, people don't like 'their' pages being tagged and prefer to hide-and-ignore). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking more like a daily report of what's currently blacklisted. If there's a category, that would work too. Maybe Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) could adapt his bot and produce such a listing if that's no longer done? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Headbomb, Sure. It needs a rewrite anyway. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 00:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyberpower678: you can look at WP:JCW/POP or WP:JCW/CRAP for some inspiration. Like a sortable table, which can be sorted by 'popularity' and by domain, with links to articles (if few hits) or search links (if many hits). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh! Must look. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: see addition 6 (Feb 5, 2019) in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/open.online. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=885154010"