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 GermanJoe (talk | contribs) at 07:55, 25 October 2019 (→‎Bestculturaldestinations: 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. For a description of the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. For instructions on administering the spam blacklist, see 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 – 922936710 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    politicaluprise.com

    A seem personal blog like "news/current affair website" was spammed by the user. Google search show no hit, but echo of contributions of the user at Twitter (using Sajjadkazmi946), Instagram and Facebook (using the name "Political Uprising"). Wikipedia is not place to promote start-up news website. Special:Diff/920754286, Special:Diff/920755723, Special:Diff/920757508. Matthew hk (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Matthew hk: no Declined, lets first see if the message gets through now, or after a block. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    zoominfo.com

    This isn't the first IP/user I've seen WP:REFSPAMming links to this site in this way. I didn't record the others (but I can in future), but I've reverted almost identical WP:REFSPAM from at least half a dozen other IP/users in the last month or two. There may, I suppose, be occasions where this is a valid source for a reference, and there are, I know, existing links but I haven't seen any occasions where it's an irreplaceable, reliable source, and this is a campaign to use us to drive traffic to the site, imo. -- Begoon 09:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @XLinkBot/RevertList: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. -- Begoon 12:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, should [1] have therefore been bot-reverted? Or was I just too quick for the bot? If the latter then I'll leave any more I notice on my watchlist for a while to give the bot a chance... -- Begoon 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Begoon, I'll have to check, bot had hickups lately. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks. It looks like the bot reverted one of 122.178.101.169's contributions - [2]. I've done the others now. Cheers. -- Begoon 14:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed this, so it seems to be working. -- Begoon 04:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This starts to be annoying:

    All SPAs, same MO as previous IPs. It looks a bit strange to me that this is zoominfo themselves promoting ... (@Begoon:, maybe time for a RS/N to see if this is even usable?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Beetstra, there seem to be a couple of hundred existing links in article space (unless I messed up my search parameters). As I said above, I've not really seen a case where it's essential, and they are a commercial company who makes money out of selling access to their database, so I'm not sure. Joe job? Perhaps, but a pretty determined one if that's the case - and for what reason? Big time investment for a competitor or an ex-employee with a grudge, I'd have thought - but who knows... The Ips above all geolocate to India, but I guess the fact that someone might be outsourcing spamming shouldn't be too surprising. -- Begoon 06:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Begoon: I have a VPN, I can be everywhere in Europe, IP addresses are difficult things, and indeed, there are some countries where there seem to be a lot of sweatshops doing stuff. Joe jobbers tend to be just as persistent as spammers. XLinkBot does a decent job, but as you said, there are hundreds of links there, it may be good to investigate whether it is an idea to clean up and blacklist. (other option, EditFilter before XLinkBot). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok - I'll put it at RSN, see what others think. -- Begoon 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Zoominfo.com. Cheers. -- Begoon 06:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    influencercash.co

    User keeps posting link to page and seems to attach their user name to the end of the link. Probably an account trying to share personal link to gain on IFCO. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @AmericanAir88: thankyou for reporting this, but no Declined, I see only one addition and the user is blocked. If this persists on multiple accounts we will reconsider this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    ianring.com

    IP has been persistently adding this link to various music articles. Link is being used repeatedly as a non-RS source to back various OR claims as well as being added to various external link lists. This has been ongoing since 2017. This was originally posted on WP:ANI here. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Blackmane: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    gpkm.wordpress.com


    A new website directly related to "Pastor Isaiah Ogedegbe" (see deletion log, and that's only one of the many names the same promo-piece has been created as) and his globally blacklisted "warritimes.wordpress.com". See these edits adding the new website on Warri. The new user account has been reported as an obvious sock of User:Vwegba4real. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Thomas.W: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    careersngr.com

    Nigerian "careers website" that is being repeatedly added to articles about Nigerian government agencies etc. Sample edits: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Thomas.W: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    researchreportkart.com

    Slow-motion spamming of "research report" links into articles on chemical topics. Activity has continued via IPs since Research Report Kart (talk · contribs) was blocked and notified. -- The Anome (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @The Anome: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist - obvious "research" spammer, initial block has been ignored. --GermanJoe (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cspathway

    Racked up a spam4 quite fast. Waiting for further reports. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    myinfer

    One of the IPs was adding the other domain 6 minutes after the one noticed by LiWa3, waiting for reports. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bestculturaldestinations

    Persistent linkspamming. The Banner talk 10:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @The Banner: - recurring spam to blog with self-promotional content, warned in February 2019. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    zipmex.com.au

    Not many of these yet, but there's a pattern: slowly adding links to zipmex.com.au in references, from changeable IPs. It's the changing IPs that suggest blocking the URL may be needed - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @David Gerard: indeed, 4 IPs each with 1 edit. Unlikely that the fifth IP will get the message of the blocks. plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dreamlist

    See [15]. Thanks @MrOllie: for tagging the IPs/Users. -KH-1 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- an SPI with checkuser would possibly be useful to clean up (recurring usage of single-purpose accounts).GermanJoe (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    3 .onions

    BBC's Tor-accessible site, allowing direct access to BBC News via that service. Blacklisting is not necessary as the blanket *.onion ban is mostly for all of the barely-accessible and very shady content on the Darkweb, not this. Near as I can tell, the only *.onion URI around here is Facebook's for some reason. Not sure why we are only linking out to their walled garden surveillance network and not reliable news sources or valuable non-profits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Freedom of the Press Foundation's Tor-accessible site, allowing direct access to BBC News via that service. Blacklisting is not necessary as the blanket *.onion ban is mostly for all of the barely-accessible and very shady content on the Darkweb, not this. Near as I can tell, the only *.onion URI around here is Facebook's for some reason. Not sure why we are only linking out to their walled garden surveillance network and not reliable news sources or valuable non-profits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ProPublica's Tor-accessible site, allowing direct access to BBC News via that service. Blacklisting is not necessary as the blanket *.onion ban is mostly for all of the barely-accessible and very shady content on the Darkweb, not this. Near as I can tell, the only *.onion URI around here is Facebook's for some reason. Not sure why we are only linking out to their walled garden surveillance network and not reliable news sources or valuable non-profits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Koavf: no Declined First, this has to go through whitelisting of the independent domains ( Defer to Whitelist), not through de-listing which would allow all the other domains to be listed. Second, I would not whitelist/delist these except if they were the official homepage of the subject of the page, i.e. we would need to have a page on BBC's .onion. Facebook's .onion was whitelisted because, for whatever reason, we have a separate page for facebook's .onion @facebookcorewwwi.onion, that is where facebook's .onion is listed, not at Facebook. And I see no reason to list this at BBC, since we are not a web directory, and we have the official website of BBC listed, and this is not a website that would work without people having special software installed. We only list the official site that most people would consider the official website, not any/all other ones. Wikipedia is not the place to find other websites of the organisation, that is the job of other websites out there, nor are we a service to allow direct access through darkweb services.
    Note that the onion rule is not because of the shady websites, it is because of the constant abuse through the real .onions that were changed into false ones. We needed a pathway to regulate which ones (i.e., the official ones that were needeD) were to be linked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, These are official. You remove them as "blogs" or "indirect" links--it seems like you fundamentally misunderstand them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf, I agree, my edit summary was wrong. Still, we define two official sites as excessive as well, second ones are only listed in very special cases. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    penang-traveltips.com

    I cannot find this on either the global or local blacklists, but I would like to use https:// www. penang-traveltips.com/francis-light-tomb.htm (I'm adding spaces here or it won't even allow me to save it here) if possible. I know it's not the most authoritative type of site, but together with other info I have which corroborates the researcher (Purdon) mentioned, it's the best I have for a particular bit of info at the moment. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:27, 25 October 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

    1920 Akron Pros season

    I tried to restore a citation ("NFL History (March 10, 2003)") to this article that was removed a few years ago, it seems, because the archived URL was not working. The archived URL is working now, but the underlying URL leads to a malicious website; I thus can't add it to the "url=" parameter, even with a "url-status=dead" parameter. Accordingly, the archived URL will not display. Does anyone have any suggestions of how to resolve this? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Usernameunique:  Defer to Whitelist for the specific link. We'll have a look. Do post the link (you may need to break it or nowiki it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Beetstra. Do you mean I should ask about the link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist? The archived live, which is fine, is http://replay.web.archive.org/20070222012552/http://nflBREAKhistory.net/linescores/pdf/1920.pdf (note the insertion of "BREAK" in the middle) — the original link, however (which you can see at the end of the archived link) appears to lead to a malicious redirect. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Usernameunique, yes, this may be best solved through whitelisting. I guess now that this is collateral damage caused by the influx of sport merchandise spam (whole sets of sites with ‘nfl’ in the name. We’ll investigate there. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=922936710"