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 Beetstra (talk | contribs) at 06:32, 22 January 2020 (→‎Techtowards: 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 administrating 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 – 936985371 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    Zoominfo.com

    Co-ordinated spamming, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Juliofcruz0902. Probably SEO spam. Guy (help!) 01:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I ran into one of the sockpuppets, Frjama, and was suspicious but let it slide because Zoominfo appeared to be a valid source. In light of the sockpuppetry, the site should be blacklisted. — Newslinger talk 01:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 01:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    indian-lyrics.com

    Edits adding this site popped on my watchlist today and I've got a feeling I've seen this added before (and reverted). Multiple indian lyrics sites have been spammed recently. I think this is a possible candidate for black listing. Ravensfire (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: Spammy and probably also copyright violations. Classy. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 20:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    lyricsganti.com

    External link spamming. Site contains copyright violations, and should not be linked to per WP:COPYLINK. — Newslinger talk 07:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --— Newslinger talk 07:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    djjaani.com

    External link spamming. Site contains copyright violations, and should not be linked to per WP:COPYLINK. — Newslinger talk 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --— Newslinger talk 09:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Since quite a few Indian music websites are being spammed in the same way, and some of them are related to each other, I'm continuing the search at WT:WPSPAM § Unlicensed Indian music websites. — Newslinger talk 11:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    rsheria.com

    Repeated spam for a blog with bonus and gift card offers. Only warning has been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    procore.com

    Has been going off and on since early 2019. They hit mostly construction-related articles. One or two articles spammed per IP. They never respond to warnings, even when IPs are reused. I don't think they're going to stop unless the blacklist makes them. - MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    technicalswank.blogspot.com

    Per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman pathak7045. Average blogspot spam; cannot see any valid usage here on Wikipedia. theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Theinstantmatrix: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --— Newslinger talk 06:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bodybuilding spam

    Repeated spamming for bodybuilding blog/shop sites after several warnings and a block. GermanJoe (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    taxsathi.in

    Continued blog spam after warnings and a first block. GermanJoe (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    bunnyandbutters.com

    Repeatedly spammed, see e.g., Special:Contributions/75.182.4.89. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Justlettersandnumbers: no Declined. According to COIBot these are the only 2 incidents (?) - usually too early for a full blacklist. But please report back, if the spamming occurs again or is part of a larger pattern (or if I have missed something). I have added a warning on IP talk. --GermanJoe (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (seems to have other links in their portfolio?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A stale incident (but certainly worth keeping an eye on). GermanJoe (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    juegostudio.com

    Repeated spamming for a promotional non-RS (3 user, 1 IP) over the last year. Several warnings have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    travelogyindia.com

    Repeated spamming for a promotional blog by multiple IPs. See: added by 182.69(...), added by 106.215(...), added by 106.215(...) (2nd), added by 112.177(...). All examples added in the last week. The Banner talk 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Banner, Significantly larger:
    And a handful of named accounts. Some seen genuine (though maybe misplaced as witnessed by the fact that nothing is still there), and there is quite a cross-wiki part to this. Waiting for some more reports. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. All seem just SPA for this link, one per IP. Communication will be futile. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    uniquelyrics.com

    Part of the current wave of indian lyrics sites, but this one is up to at least three user accounts now and still hasn't gotten the clue, so time to break out the hammer. Ravensfire (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    aircheckdownloads.com

    aircheckdownloads.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

    • I came across this link due to an AFD I initiated and it's got quite a complicated history. This website hosts "scoped" (recorded) OTA broadcasts of radio jingles and commercials of a wide variety of radio stations. I cannot possibly see how this jives with our copyright policy and more specifically, Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking/WP:LINKVIO as it's clearly hosting copyrighted material that they could not possibly own the rights to. Unfortunately the COIBot report maxes out (there are 55 occurrences on enwiki, despite the report number because of one editor who repeatedly blanked his sandbox which contained the link) and the rest were added presumably in good faith by another editor. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    allbestspec.com

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soyseak. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    technicalcuriosity.com

    Added by five different accounts over the last year; this addition will be the last. plus Added. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    gaylesbiantimes.com

    Being inserted (sometimes to the point of outright spam, such as this) by a socking editor, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ars3nal311. Appears to have once been a legit domain and is cited/referenced in articles, but is now a spam site, will need to deal with the existing links at some point. creffett (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The was a San Diego-based publication with that name that folded in 2010. The new site at that domain is definitely garbage and of no use to Wikipedia. plus Added OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Techtowards

    Link
    Spammers

    + others. Please blacklist. -KH-1 (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    eporner

    eporner.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

    Hello, we've noticed that someone has clearly spammed wikipedia using our domain eporner.com. Random links from our domain were added in completely unmatched places: list are here Therefore, our domain now is blacklisted. Please unblock it, because users cannot naturally add content from our domain as a source for information published on Wikipedia. We have press information BLOG in the eporner.com/news/ which are SFW, very useful as a reliable source of industry information (We are large, over 10 years old, alexa top1000 website). Regards, Eporner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eporner (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined Please read the large yellow box at the top of this section. Furthermore, it's not blacklisted locally but rather on meta. If a trusted, non-COI editor finds a reasonable link at your site for a source, they can request a whitelisting for that link. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Toevolution

    toevolution.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 I want to add resources to this site, but a message appears that the domain is prohibited and it can be added and I do not see any reasons for its ban or its presence in the blacklist and I need to add some articles to it as a reference and I do not see any reason for being on this list. Please remove it so that I can add it and benefit from it me and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulaziz Sobh (talk • contribs)

    no Declined It's blacklisted because you and many other anon IP addresses spammed the hell out of it in 2018. Furthermore, it looks like a garbage site with nonsense about keto and other fads; as such, it would have no use on Wikipedia.OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Computer Business Review

    cbronline.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 Unless I'm missing something this is a news site, "The site offers senior IT industry executives in-depth news and understanding.". like "xxx business journal". I have hit this blocked site before and just hit it again. I don't see a reason why it's blocked. Peter Flass (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Peter Flass: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. The site has been blacklisted due to systematic spamming in the past. Please see the archives on top for further information. --GermanJoe (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter Flass, Moreover, cbronline.com material is very often churnalism - copied or regurgitated material from primary sources or other sources. Most of the material is replaceable by better sources (or the actual primary source and not one pretending to be secondary). For the few cases where that is not possible whitelisting can be applied. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    EconLib

    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 would like to request that econlib.org be removed from the blacklist. This is a legitimate site that hosts a number of prominent bloggers, a popular podcast, and a library of writings by economists and philosophers from the 19th century. I have no personal connection or ideological affinity to the site; I just don't see a reason why it should be blacklisted. Thank you. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sir Paul: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. This was spammed by a paid editor. Virtually everything other than the (already whitelisted) /encyclopedia are available from other free sources that do not have the baggage of being part of a libertarian think tank advancing an agenda. Every one I have seen was replaceable from Project Gutenberg, archive.org or some other neutral archive. --Guy (help!) 13:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sir Paul: Perennially no Declined - except for the encyclopedia it self-published (and which is whitelisted already), most of the other information is available from other sources (including often our own WikiSource). The blogs are opinions of the people themselves, which have very little use in general references. That leaves only very little information that is regularly needed (as witnessed by the many declined whitelisting requests which almost exclusively show that alternatives exist). The rest can be whitelisted:  Defer to Whitelist.
    As for the reason of blacklisting: a declared ring of paid editors with a demonstrable conflict of interest with this library found it necessary to write promotional texts regarding this set of websites (the blogs and site itself). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, both, for the reply. I know you are pressed with time, so I won't push the point beyond this response. EconLib is part of an educational nonprofit; they have a libertarian ideological orientation (which I don't share), but I don't think that's in itself a reason for making the website suspect. I am not familiar with the details of the COI alluded by Dirk Beetstra (a search didn't help), but I would caution against blacklisting an entire domain that hosts a wide variety of content and a number of heterogeneous projects because of an incident that likely involved a few people unrelated to the rest of the site.
    For background, the reason I was prompted to place this request was that, on several occasions over the past three or four months, I tried to provide a better citation for a claim made in an article only to stumble upon the message that my edit was rejected for including a link to econlog.org. A recent example is my attempt to link to this blog post [see first hit; obviously I can't link to the actual address] as a source for the concept of "ideological Turing test"—reasonably popular in some circles—in the Bryan Caplan article. Currently the source is an obscure comment that is clearly inadequate as a canonical reference. I understand that I could request that this particular URL be whitelisted, but although that would meet my needs in this specific case, it wouldn't address the underlying issue, which is that editors need to cite this site with sufficient regularity that placing a whitelist request each time isn't really a sustainable solution. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Paul, nonprofit or not, think tanks exist to promote an agenda. The Liberty Fund is a fundamentalist libertarian group, and its publications serve that agenda: if their perspective on a thing is significant then we should be sourcing their perspective from reliable independent secondary sources that establish its significance. Your suggested blog post should not be linked, regardless of the blacklist status of the site, because it's a blog post - at best a primary source and in this case also lacking credible evidence of peer review. And one of the main goals of the spammer who got the site blacklisted, was promotion of Bryan Caplan, so that's about the worst example you could have picked! Guy (help!) 16:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Paul being nonprofit or not does not matter in cases of spam. ANY organisation of any form has 'an agenda' (some stronger, some weaker). On some times it are the individual KPIs of an employee that 'force' them to spam (I've run into a website maintainer of a state-run museum who spammed their links because they needed to show sufficient web-traffic to their server). Non-profit organisation still need money to run, and being seen on the web is a great way of attracting incoming traffic who may, who knows, buy something. That a paid editing ring is getting involved in this shows that there was an agenda worth promoting, even for a non-profit organisation.
    The site econlib.org has, as I said, the encyclopedia whitelisted completely. The rest of the material, as has been shown on the spam-whitelist, is almost exclusively replaceable by other online copies, often even copies on our own WikiSource: practically ALL of that material is in the public domain. It may boil down to just a handful of links to the blog (which anyway is a source of limited use, but I agree that some material there is suitable for primary sourcing). The link you mention may very well easily be whitelisted, and requests for delistings become easier if one can show a large/regular volume of granted whitelist requests (which we have not). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sir Paul: This blacklisting has been discussed in a March 2017 ANI thread and a May 2017 MediaWiki thread. I don't see a consensus for keeping this on the blacklist in those threads, in fact @JzG: is heavily criticized in them. Apparently keeping this on the spam blacklist is JzG's pet project. I find it troubling to say the least that JzG is saying unsupported personal opinions here The Liberty Fund is a fundamentalist libertarian group and that there is a historical ArbCom finding on JzG misusing the spam blacklist. Why is he acting as a gatekeeper here? What is the evidence of this source being spammed? It's because Vipul (talk · contribs) was a paid editor 3 years ago and he used this extensively as a source? Can you quote any part of a policy/guideline which supports keeping this blacklisted? --Pudeo (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pudeo, it's on the blacklist due to paid spamming. The request this time was so that the OP could add "known for..." a theory with no article based on a primary link to the website, which is not appropriate. This is typical. The vast majority of uses were replaceable, wrapping libertarian ideology round public domain sources, and many of the citations were deceptive regardless of who added them (elgl Areopagitica cited as published by The Library of Econmics and Liberty). There's consensus at RSN that we should not use agenda-based sources for public domain content.
    Here's the original log entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=769671529#Immigration_law_refspam_round_3 - this was Vipul's paid spamming and a lot of it was promoting Bryan Caplan, exactly the subject this time. Guy (help!) 20:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pudeo, I leave it as an exercise for you to find the very clear and direct connection that proves the COI that this admitted paid editor has. And again, by far most of the useful info is in the public domain and hence available every/elsewhere. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    TheNextHint.Com - News Portal

    thenexthint.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 news site is approved by Google News. I thing we want this type of site for reference links. but now I saw this site is black listed so now I would like you to please remove this site from blacklist because anybody want this type of site for references. Wikialinaparker (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wikialinaparker: no Declined, what part of "[t]his was spammed by accounts with a clear conflict of interest" did you not understand? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they are getting the hint. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who's spam this site, But now I want to remove this site from blacklist, could you please suggest me the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikialinaparker (talk • contribs) 07:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikialinaparker: I don't know who spammed it either (though generally it are people affiliated with the site, or SEO companies who were hired by those people). We only remove sites if they have a demonstrable use to Wikipedia and we can be reasonably reassured that the spamming stopped. The former would be up to our users, the latter however is seriously questionable seeing the records on:
    182.74.163.42 (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)
    Which earlier would suggest that there is a lot more to blacklist than that there is no risk of further spamming. Until then: no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am taking responsibility of this site Wikialinaparker (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikialinaparker, and how do you think to do that? Or are you the owner of the site? If that is the case, may I suggest you thorougly read m:Terms of use.
    Regarding the de-listing, however you think to take care of the spamming we will de-list when there is demonstrable use, the rest can be handled with specific whitelisting where appropriate. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not owner of this site but I want to create a wiki page of this site thats why I want this site Wikialinaparker (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikialinaparker for that you don't need a delisting, you need a whitelisting on a neutral landing page:  Defer to Whitelist Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Northern Transmissions

    northerntransmissions.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 Northern Transmissions is a popular Canadian online magazine for independent music. It appears the site may have been hacked sometime in 2012 which lead to it being blacklisted. As it is a relevant music publication, many music related entries reference its' reviews.Henry A-W (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Henry aw, I see you tried to use it on Draft:Northern Transmissions. As long as it is in draft I think it is fine without the working external link, if it is ready/accepted for mainspace then we can always whitelist the specific link (in the meantime I am trying to find the relevant discussions). Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean by "hacked" here. The site is hosting service in Los Angeles. Looks like a spam campaign launched from British Telecom IPs, likely as part of an SEO campaign. Then in 2015 an account with a conflict of interest tried several times to create an article, resulting in the article getting salted. Be aware of our conflict-of-interest policies and disclosure requirements. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Henry aw: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain (e.g. an About page). The site itself was spammed and does not look to be a reliable source sufficient to justify removal from the blacklist, unless you have evidence to the contrary in the form of consensus at WP:RSN. --Guy (help!) 08:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Procore Technologies

    procore.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 Procore Technologies is a construction project management software company. The company itself is not posting these links and has nothing to do with them. It seems like these links have been posted by a third-party agency. I think the site itself should be removed from the blacklist, but perhaps those IPs should be blocked instead. --Geri.corum (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done As you can see on the report links above, this was spammed quite extensively. I have no doubt that Joe jobs happen, but the careful and deliberate nature of the additions makes it much more likely that this was part of an SEO campaign. Whether or not it was an internal or third-party SEO campaign is immaterial here. I don't see how procore links would qualify as reliable sources for any material on Wikipedia, and as such there's no compelling reason to remove it from the blacklist. An experiened editor without a COI could request a whitelisting if the need arose for an article about the company. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:50, 21 January 2020 (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

    Alphabetization

    Should the list be alphabetised? Any problem with doing this? - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't seem like a problem, but Beetstra and JzG might have different opinions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth doing if it would improve performance, but otherwise probably not. Guy (help!) 12:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is currently nearly chronological. I do not see how alphabetizing the list would be of use (but agreed, no problem either). Whether in alphabetical or random (i.e. chronological) order, you'd probably use the search function from your browser to find the rule. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's worth doing unless it improves matching performance, which I doubt that it would. As Beetstra has noted, it's much easier to use the browser search function than scrolling through the list. A disadvantage is that adding new entries becomes more tedious. The /b prefixes add ti the challenge of visually scanning for the proper insertion point. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=936985371"