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 Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs) at 15:01, 26 March 2021 (→‎pahadkikahani.com: adding). 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 regex — 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 - 1014339604 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|1014339604#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|1014339604#section_name}}
    →A user-gadget for handling additions to and removals from the spam-blacklist is available at User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-blacklist-Handler


    Proposed additions


    tripprivacy.com

    196.219.231.18 (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)

    This appears to be a Malaysian tour operator's website. The above-referenced IP has spammed it into the external-links sections of many food-related articles. See, e.g., [1], as well as all of the other contributions from the IP. Thanks for considering this. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ivypanda.com

    IvyPanda's Google description is "IvyPanda is a student success hub designed to improve the educational outcomes and learning capabilities of students around the world by connecting them with ... Free Essays". Six out of seven links appear to be spam as they were posted by similar IP accounts only used to post links to the site. The other link appears to have been added in good faith. TSventon (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TSventon, the coibot report is showing more accounts, some of which have been blocked by user:ST47 under a checkuserblock/for spam. Do you mind to comment on the accounts mentioned in the report, ST47?
    The set is cross-wiki, and the 4 related IPs (93.170 ...) and the socks do suggest coordinated spam. I suggest to  Defer to Global blacklist. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk Beetstra thanks, this is my first visit to Spam-blacklist, should the bot report include all the accounts I reported? I can only see 93.170.66.96, not the first three. TSventon (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TSventon, I am waiting for ST47 to comment, and will then take care of it. None of the accounts here blocked for socking is marked as the master (they are not marked at all), I just wonder if the situation is bigger than just this site. Dirk Beetstra T C 23:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like they were spam sockpuppets. I don't believe they were part of any larger case. Based on the IPs reported here, it does look like the /22 can be blocked, but global blacklisting sounds a lot cleaner. ST47 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon and ST47: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    thefatherofhollywood.com

    Self published site (about a self published book) and associated blog. Not a reliable source. Has been added by a series of COI editors/sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keitrt/Archive, including replacing other source links with versions hosted on their own site. According to this vintage report from the COI noticeboard, COI editor has been adding this since 2007. - MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just know that Mr. Ollie does have some sort of interest he is hiding. The site has been up there for years and peaceful until he decided to attack H J Whitley. Assume he is an author of a self-published book, relative of H. H. Wilcox or CE Toberman. and declaring himself an expert. He is embarrassed. If it is true that you do not want any information about the Father of Hollywood please remove reference from every site on Wiki starting with C E Toberman. Strange that one person can cancel another. Where are the manages of Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.205.135 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    nupebaze.com.ng

    Multiple socks popping up to spam this, plus Added to the blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    chillibollywood.com

    Spam of garbage blog/scraper site, following the seo trick of swapping out for dead links. They've been warned on all three accounts and continued to spam. Ravensfire (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    pahadkikahani.com

    Appears to be a newer scraper/blog site that's being spammed moderately aggressively. Their about page [2] strongly suggests this is not a professional setup, same with the contact page [3]. Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    latestsarkarijobalert.com

    Spamming from at least four IPs over several months; plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    pv-magazine.com

    pv-magazine.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

    PV magazine is a leading, well regarded journal for information about the solar business. Editors around the world support PV magazine with unique editorial content, reporting about new developments in this essential climate change mitigation technique. Though being clearly biased pro-solar energy, new market data can be useful as in this example:

    www.pv-magazine.com/2021/02/16/global-pv-installations-to-surpass-150-gw-in-2021

    I could not find this information elsewhere on the web. Sponsored content in PV-magazine is clearly marked as such (just like in any other newspaper). Blacklisting started in 2011 and was initially justified, after obvious attempts by employees or marketing to include their links. However, 10 years later, blacklisting is not appropriate anymore. There are more than 100 cites of pv-magazine anyway, without using the .com-links. I want to point out that I have no personal connection to PV-magazine and I am not part of the solar industry. Hedgehoque (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hedgehoque, the article you 'link' in itself points to another article, so the information is available elsewhere on the web. A quick search results in "TrendForce: Global PV Demand Will Reach 158GW for 2021 as Many Regional Markets Rebound, but Risks Remain as Subsidies Drop" (this one predates the report), "Global Solar Capacity Set to Exceed 150 GW in 2021" (and I am not sure if that includes the one in the article).
    That there are other uses without the link is plain wrong - the material is, often? always?, regurgitated material, and the original sources should be used. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, generally you are right about using original sources. It is a general WP problem that many newspaper articles are linked which just refer to other reports or studies. Often enough, editors do not take the time to search for the original papers. In this case, the given source is PV InfoLink. On PV InfoLink site I can find earlier estimations about 2021 but not the current one. So this seems to be exclusive content. The links you found are different estimations with a different background. Sure, they could be taken as a source instead. But my proposal is not about whitelisting this specific article. I just think that blacklisting the whole pv-magazine is just too strict because it is a useful source in general. Hedgehoque (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hedgehoque, it does not matter if it is exclusive content, that just means that one needs to get access to it or find someone who has. It is not a reason to then use regurgitated information as an alternative.
    This discussion on this specific link is just an example, it is almost exclusively true for anything on this site, it is all regurgitated and in all cases alternatives (generally the originals) can be found. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    buy.guru

    buy.guru: 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

    It is a legit site. Don't find any reason to have it in blacklist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviral2122 (talk • contribs)

    @Aviral2122: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist. ALL of .guru is blanket blocked since there was a huge amount of spam being added on that domain. Legit, ánd useful, sites are easily whitelisted, but you'll have to specify that use in the whitelisting request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    sci-hub.do and sci-hub.st

    sci-hub.do: 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 sci-hub.st: 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

    These 2 links are well known, are working perfectly and they are not malware sites. It's totally ridiculous to say otherwise. Bocaccio70s (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined Indeed, they are well-known for pirating copyrighted content; all of their domains are globally blacklisted per our WP:COPYLINK policy; that is, we don't permit links to copyright-violating content. See related requests here. OhNoitsJamie Talk

    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.



    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    User:103.110.49.147 and User:103.110.49.124

    https://sportsmatik.com/ they have literally added this spam site in many players. User:103.110.49.124 is already blocked by General notability for same.  Zoglophie 17:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1014339604"