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 14:23, 17 May 2021 (→‎Proposed additions: 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 - 1023640702 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|1023640702#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|1023640702#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


    viXRa.org

    vixra.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

    A pre-print service known for holding papers mostly in the fringe science area. If there anything valid in it, it would be better cited to the journal where it actually got published (per WP:PAYWALL, there's no problem if the source is not freely accessible). It's been used by the user linked here to promote some really bollocks claims about astronomical bodies, and I'm sure they're not the only ones - pre-prints are generally discouraged, and a pre-print service specialising in junk science should get the blacklist treatment... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done a clean-up of the few links in articles. There's a lot more on talk pages, but these are harmless for the time being; we just ought to discourage future use - if there's an exceptional paper which can be cited directly to there, that can be dealt via case-by-case whitelist. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Restored from the archive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Sorry for pinging, you're surely watching this page, but since this has so far failed to get any attention. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    australiasevereweather.com

    australiasevereweather.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

    Malwarebytes identifies this website as a trojan. It's referenced in about 20 articles. Perhaps used to be valid but now taken over. Needs investigation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonies Chris (talk • contribs) , 14:54, 20 April 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know definitely that it's bad - just that Malwarebytes objects when I try to access it. Maybe it is just a false positive. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Colonies Chris, thanks for reporting. Here is the report from Yandex which is probably what tripped Malwarebytes. I'm guessing it's a false positive as Google, McAfee, ESET and Opera didn't flag it. The MediaWiki blacklist stops new links from being added, it does nothing about existing links. Please report such links to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) in the future so they can be analyzed and, if found harmful, have existing links replaced in articles. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    royalark.net

    This is a deprecated source that was used thousands of times; I spent many hours removing it after RSN discussions, and yet it is continuing to be added despite an edit filter. I just removed over 40 references to five separate pages on a single article [1]. This is beyond tedious. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    JzG, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Self-published peerage websites. Sounds good, kill it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    muslimmirror.com

    See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Fake news from muslimmirror. A site that spreads fake news isn't a useful source. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I guess few are watching this page. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    pouk.co.uk

    Spammed from at least five different accounts. plus Added to spam blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    moneymodels.org

    moneymodels.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

    Ongoing spam campaign. plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    elliotltyler.wordpress.com

    elliotltyler.wordpress.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 is a non-RS that has been ref-spammed into numerous articles by various IPs and an account with an obvious COI. SmartSE (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    igniteindiaeducation.com

    Promotional editing around this organization and their site is the primary focus of the EditorF sockfarm. Starting to become active again, has been going off and on since June 2020. - MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    oneworld.website

    Mass spamming website apparently designed in 2002. plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    www.en.topwar.ru

    en.topwar.ru: 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 The site's one of the most informative sites that I've seen in my search to find more on the 5TD engine series. To be frank, I don't think the site would be complete enough if it weren't for this website. So, I humbly ask for it to be removed. belg (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    www.census2011.co.in

    census2011.co.in: 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 stores data of the 2011 Census of India and can the figures from the site can used to cite statistics and about the demographics of India. That is why I ask for it's removal from the blacklist. Skeptical Sapien (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a previous discussion about this here; this isn't a government website, but rather a commercial site aggregating public-domain data. Is there any reason why you can't use the actual government census website? OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your reply, I will cite the official sources then, I apologize for not looking up about this before. Skeptical Sapien (talk)

    wapcar.my

    wapcar.my: 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 proper and registered Malaysian automotive site, and the top 2 most visited automotive site in Malaysia. I found myself finding many Wikipedia-worthy information of automobiles that aren't reported by other automotive sites. I understood that this site was a subject of linking spam few years ago, yet it is currently an important site for Malaysian automotive industry. Andra Febrian (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Andra Febrian, it was deemed a scraper site, which means that likely most information on the site is retrieved from elsewhere. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, I understood a user has used that argument for the site to be blacklisted, however that is not true. They have their own set of journalists that tests cars on their own with their verdict and analysis:
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/pros-and-cons-2021-toyota-fortuner-28-vrz--floods-arent-a-problem-but-your-stuff-might-be-27477
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/review-2021-mercedesbenz-gla-250-%E2%80%93-it%E2%80%99s-good-but-is-it-rm-285k-good-27472
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/5-things-the-perodua-ativa-needs-to-improve-on-%E2%80%93-long-term-review-10-27509
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/ratings-2020-vw-tiguan-allspace-highline-14-%E2%80%93-practical-but-costly-maintenance-rm-3848-to-service-27415
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/review-2021-volvo-xc40-t5-recharge--the-gateway-drug-to-pure-ev-ownership-27272
    They reported news that aren't reported by any other news sites, case on point:
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/finally-vw-polo-mk5-discontinued-allnew-mk6-coming-to-malaysia-soon-6909, proof.
    They also wrote articles that provides insights, analysis, historical overview and critics rarely seen in other news sites:
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/how-is-the-proton-iriz-still-on-sale-7-years-later-and-is-it-still-relevant-27528
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/even-japanese-driving-schools-don%E2%80%99t-use-kei-cars-is-our-perodua-axia-even-good-enough-27448
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/the-legendary-vans-that-malaysians-balik-kampung-in-%E2%80%93-vanette-liteace-spectron-27495
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/outdated-and-woefully-incomplete-malaysias-driving-curriculum-needs-a-major-update-26739
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/proton-x70-is-ready-for-exports-but-these-chinese-rivals-will-hinder-its-progress-27134
    • https://www.wapcar.my/news/selling-cars-with-a-4speed-automatic-in-2021-should-be-illegal-27011
    While it might not be the best automotive website out there, the writers knew what they're writing, unlike many scraper sites. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    forru.org

    This site, The Forest Restoration Research Unit, seems innocuous and I wanted to quote an academic article hosted at this site. In 2013 it was marked as hosting Trojan. Is this still valid? Brunswicknic (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC) p.s. @Werieth:@Hu12:[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.



    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Understanding why a user is hitting the blacklist

    I've been trying to coach a new user, Ladlads (talk · contribs), with adding some changes, supported by reliable sources. They say they attempted to add multiple sources (History.com and the local paper) but Wikipedia told me they were both on the blacklist. I'm a little confused:

    • While History.com is considered unreliable at RSP—for good reason—it doesn't seem to be listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.
    • I'm a little surprised that any given "local paper" would be on the RSP, as I'd assume such a thing to be at least somewhat reliable (although I'm sure some aren't).

    Is there a way to tell why their edits got disallowed? Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    He's using google amp links. For example: "google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/" needs to be just "history.com". Kuru (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kuru: Aha, thanks. For future reference, is there a way for a (non-admin) user to see that is what's going on?
    Also, blacklisting AMP seems very likely to hit good-faith users, and AFAICT, it was added just on a suspicion that it could be used for filter circumvention. Might it be a good idea to whitelist it, then maybe set up a bot to strip AMP urls or revert if the resulting URL is blacklisted? Gaelan 💬✏️ 22:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaelan, it is also the very coreof SEO. Using a google amp link is telling google that someone is interested in the website they are redirected to, and hence increases the google ranking of the website. Add google.com/amp/s/www.myspammycompany.com as your company’s website, and every time someone finds you company on already high ranking Wikipedia and follows your link your website itself also ranks up. And there is literally no single reason why you cannot link to the proper site. You don’t write an article based on finding the result in Google, you write article after reading the page Google sends you to. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably observing that AMP URLs, in a desktop browser, just redirect through to the normal URL. But that's not the case on mobile. Try this: on a phone, google some recent piece of news (I used "glasgow immigration protest"). Click any result with a lightning bolt icon next to the domain name. Observe that the article shows up, and that your URL bar still contains the AMP URL.
    It's very easy, as we saw here, for a user who Googled something, clicked a link, read the article, and copied the URL—i.e. did exactly what they were supposed to do, unless they specifically knew they had to work around AMP—to end up copying an AMP link instead of the canonical URL.
    In my view, blocking AMP links in this fashion is very BITEy—it's an honest, easy mistake to make while making a legitimate effort to cite an RS, and is likely to hit editors who are already frustrated by their edits being reverted for being unsourced. My understanding (e.g. from the note at the top of WP:EF/R) is that we don't use automated mechanisms like this to reject good-faith edits with small policy violations, only for obvious, unambiguous abuse. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PACT is a thing. If someone is linking to a google search result, that has proven to often be people trying to avoid the blacklist. New users who fall on this can just be explained that they shouldn't do this and should instead link to the page directly (maybe the edit notice for edits disallowed by the blacklist could be updated to reflect this?). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RandomCanadian, it is already in there :-) Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaelan, I pasted www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/the-untold-story-of-how-an-escaped-slave-helped-sir-francis-drake-circumnavigate-the-globe into my browser bar, and the url gets rewritten to https://www.history.com/news/the-untold-story-of-how-an-escaped-slave-helped-sir-francis-drake-circumnavigate-the-globe … on my iPad. I don’t know what browser you use, and though I know there are odd cases, what you describe is a rarity. Follow down the google amp link will always be rewritten to the original link. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it actually needs to be a phone, not a tablet - I get the redirect when my user agent is macOS Safari or iPad Safari, but not iPhone Safari. The behavior of these "AMP viewer URLs" is documented by Google in an annoyingly long blog post [here https://developers.googleblog.com/2017/02/whats-in-amp-url.html] - note the bullet point {{tq|

    When users visit a Google AMP viewer URL on a platform where the viewer is not available, we redirect them to the canonical page for the document. } Gaelan 💬✏️ 03:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, pinging Beetstra Gaelan 💬✏️ 03:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    how to remove from blacklist

    How can I remove my website from the Wikipedia spam listing, kindly let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shruti19sood (talk • contribs)

    Step one would be reading the instructions at the top of this page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1023640702"