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 19:20, 3 November 2019 (→‎cinemaroundup.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. 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 – 924420118 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    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 [5]. 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]

    dip-app.com

    Repeatedly spammed as both refspam, in-line link spam and sneaked into new article sections that are added only as an excuse for adding the spamlink. Continuing even after multiple warnings. They have also been plugging the dip-app (dip is short for "Deals in Places") in text form ([6], [7]) in various places. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    australiaeta.com.sg

    Scam unofficial page to obtain Australian visas keeps getting added to Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens article - diff1, diff2.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    cinemaroundup.com

    Site being aggressively spammed, clearly not a reliable source. IP (first one) has been warned and blocked for spamming previously and continued. Ravensfire (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    techhacks.nyc

    Two occurrences of said user putting the same link for self-promotion on a Wikipedia article about Brooklyn Technical High School. Included below are the (diff) pages of both occurrences. Additionally, it seems like the user profile was created solely for the purpose of inserting this link into the aforementioned Wiki article. diff1 and diff2. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @RayDeeUx: Thank you for reporting this, but please warn the user first in such cases (I have left a message on the user's talkpage, see Template:Uw-spam2 for more information). Unless it's systematic mass spamming, fraud, or similarly serious cases, blacklisting is usually done as a last resort after initial warning(s) have been ignored. no Declined - for now. --GermanJoe (talk) 19:16, 3 November 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]

    @Laterthanyouthink: I guess it is better to whitelist the specific page:  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Beetstra - do you mean that I should copy my request over there? (As far as I can see by that one and a few other informational pages on the site, the info is fairly reliable, having found quite a bit of it corroborated, by digging around and finding some more obscure sources.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Laterthanyouthink, It is basically a copy indeed, but you need to add where you want to use it and how. The original blacklisting does not seem to be about reliability, it was about heavy spamming of quite a number of penang-related sites. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks Beetstra. I'll continue with it tomorrow. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    omnislots.com

    I am one of the administrators of omnislots.com - one of our content writers tried to create an article on wikipedia about the company which resulted us to have been blocked. We take full responsibility of what have happened and we will avoid such actions in the future without having solid belief that our page should be there - at the right time, right content and right format. Could you please remove us from the list ? Thanks..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.145.42 (talk • contribs)

    @213.207.145.42: Not blacklisted here, see meta:  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dirk, will check link you shared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.145.42 (talk • contribs)

    ritualabuse.us

    I would like to have the site delisted. There are some testimonies of alleged survivors on the site and also collections of resources. I don't see how the site would constitute spam.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 19:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sparrow (麻雀): no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. I was considering to remove this 10 years after this massive case of spamming, however, I do not see any attempts in that this site was even tried to be used genuinly in that period either. My experience shows that spammers don't really stop, and some of the logitems that we have do make me worried.
    Note, sites don't constitute spam, it is the owners, SEOs, others with a vested interest, or even schoolkids who uncontrollably abuse a site that make us blacklist the site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dirk Beetstra: thanks, I'll attempt a whitelisting. I think that as long as the self promotion of the owners of the sites doesn't occur, there is no legitimate reason to blacklist the sites.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 09:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    aimraj.com

    I would like to have the site delisted, please. Maybe there was some copyright content on the site back in 2011/2012. but now it's services is fully reorganized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimrajv (talk • contribs)

     Not done unless you can explain to me how anything at that site would be useful to Wikipedia in terms of a reliable source for a reference. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:09, 2 November 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=924420118"