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 12:29, 21 September 2021 (→‎thelaptopify.com , laptopified.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 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 - 1045601203 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|1045601203#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|1045601203#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


    e-book.business

    Spammed from multiple socks, site is just a affiliate link portal to garner commissions from amazon.com. - MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @MrOllie, thanks for mentioning me - I have never received a reasonable answer (on your talk page) regarding my edits. For some reason you consider it acceptable enough to delete new content created (including math formulas and clarifications on certain niche IT-related topics). My understanding is you are willing to exterminate any link and contribution that does not fit your personal opinion (however, the mentioned website seems to be a collection of reviews and informational articles as well). I also cannot see any meaningful explanation from your side regarding other (numerous) requests from other users that can be found on your talk page. Your huge experience and time spent on Wikipedia is remarkable and I very much respect it, but would like to ask you for a bit more well-weighted decisions. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miosi042 (talk • contribs)

    @MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. We will continue to exterminate link affiliate sites that are spammed abusively, as this one has.--OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie and Ohnoitsjamie: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    linkuppuppies.com

    Bot generated site spammed from many accounts. Pachu Kannan (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pachu Kannan: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I am afraid that we will see this soon globally, but there is not enough (yet) to blacklist it on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    topinfoguide.com

    News aggregator or News scraper spammed from many accounts. Pachu Kannan (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ancient-origins.net

    Useless garbage which is frequently spammed and should not be used anywhere, per the obvious consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ancient-origins.net_is_surely_an_unreliable_source; where editors also express reasonable doubts that this will keep getting added in if no action is taken. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @RandomCanadian: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk Beetstra Why? WP:BLACKLIST "mostly lists spammers" etc., what evidence have you seen that it's used to spam Wikipedia? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan: I read the linked section (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ancient-origins.net_is_surely_an_unreliable_source) as a community consensus that these additions of this 'useless garbage' will 'forever be [being] added', and that editors 'wouldn't mind the entire site being added to the blacklist', and that this site should not be added as it will only result in more work afterwards. Yes, material gets added when it is spammed as per WP:BLACKLIST (note that there has been a spammer for this site as well, but that seems rather minimal), but also when there is community consensus to do so outside of those reasons. Do you expect this site to be of general use and that we will see a massive influx of whitelisting requests to a level that playing whack-a-mole with good-faith additions is more efficient? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk Beetstra: That thread was purportedly started for opinion about reliability not blacklisting. As for whether I expect the site to be of general use -- I don't know what's generally useful in potential cases, I'm only assuming that some editors who used it might have had good faith, which offsets the two or three editors who used the word spam. But what's most concerning is the idea that if there's a perceived WP:RSN thread consensus to blacklist that's enough. You know that WP:BLACKLIST says "However, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers." Are we at least agreeing that you didn't do this as a last resort against spammers? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have mixed feelings about blacklisting. I don't doubt that's it frequently used in good faith, and obviously the "opinion" type-stuff they publish would never meet WP:RS. The link is currently used on 200+ pages; some of the linked articles seem reasonable (e.g., www.ancient-origins.net/history/mummy-juanita-sacrifice-inca-ice-maiden-009800 for Mummy Juanita). In many cases there are probably better sources that could be used for the same info; I imagine that ancient-origins comes out on top of searches frequently given it's popularity. At the very least, if it's removed from the blacklist (or comes up at the white list), we should add a "yellow" entry to WP:RSP that makes clear that the opinion/editorial pages are not acceptable, but some simple reporting may be. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohnoitsjamie: are you referring to the reference that was removed here? I do not see where the referenced material is even in the linked document. The article references an own, totally unreferenced article on www.ancient-origins.net/history/analysis-shows-children-were-given-drugs-and-alcohol-ritual-sacrifice-500-years-ago-008571. Yes, it is popular, but Wikipedia is also popular.
    The thread on RSN reads to me that we should not be linking here at all, there is not even one maybe there. And that of 9 editors. @Peter Gulutzan: yes, the blacklist is full of material where there is RSN consensus that we should not be wasting time removing it over and over, see e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL, or many other items in RSP. Maybe the policies need to be updated to reflect that practice.
    Let us have the test at the whitelist and see if people come there with cases that obviously pass. Or another thread (RfC) at RSN? Dirk Beetstra T C 16:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a consensus that it should never be linked, I'm OK with blacklisting; my comments were based on a cursory glance at a few articles that didn't seem to be silly (unlike the editorial pages hosted there). OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk Beetstra is saying "see e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL" but the Daily Mail is not blacklisted so if it were relevant that would support my position. Dirk Beetstra is saying "Maybe the policies need to be updated to reflect that practice". I'm saying no, the practice needs to reflect the guidelines (i.e. WP:BLACKLIST and WP:LINKSPAM), and Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting guidance for administrators, no maybes. Dirk Beetstra is suggesting going to whitelist, or WP:RSN. I'm saying no, Proposed removals looks more appropriate. I'll wait a few days in case there are other comments on this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not without precedent, Infowars and Opindia are blacklisted for similar reasons. Policies are supposed to be descriptive and not prescriptive anyway. - MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan:, sorry, I was of the impression that the dailymail was also blacklisted, like e.g. Breitbart, opindia, inforwars, natural news, mylife, swathes of fake news sites (including e.g. lenta.ru).
    Wikipedia decides by consensus. Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting states "Evidence- There should be clear evidence of disruption, persistent spamming or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". I see a consensus that an external link (also as used in a reference) is to be deprecated and that all use is inappropriate (it violates Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guideline / verifiability policy), and where in that consensus several people call it 'spam' and there is a suggestion to blacklist, without any opposing views. Those 9 editors see this like that. I now have two choices: either I bring the opinion that this is not spam, not violating policies and guidelines, that their opinion is not enough to blacklist this material, so becoming in party in the discussion, or I can implement what 9 people are all saying without anyone disagreeing with their point (well 3 choices, I can ignore it at all and frustrate the 9 of them). Now, that consensus can change. It is also fine that you want to challenge my reading of the consensus of the WP:RSN thread. Both need a discussion, not just a call of bureaucracy (I already agreed that the spamming that occurred was not major enough to warrant blacklisting on those grounds alone).
    So as said, it is common practice to blacklist material not because it was spammed but because the community decides that they are finished with having to clean out these links because all (or the far majority of) uses are either (good faith) misuse or abuse. There are whole sets of sites on there which were never spammed, but for which the abuse is so extensive that there is no other way to stop it. That goes for the far majority of the pornographic sites (e.g. redtube), redirect sites (e.g. tinyurl.com) - many have never been spammed, but not restricting their use would require maintenance on a daily basis, and many would be missed and stay there. The spam blacklist is just another way to protect the encyclopedia against disruption, misuse and abuse. Edits that either need reversing, or follow-up cleanup because the information added is, at best, unreliable or plainly wrong.
    Yes, practice should follow policies and guidelines, but with the understanding that policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. WP:IAR is one thing, independent community consensus (on a public noticeboard) is another. And if community consensus regularly suggests things that are not described in a policy or guideline, then maybe that should be reflected in the policies and guidelines. That is how policies and guidelines are being written/rewritten: to reflect common practice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    defonic.com, tabletopy.com

    Continues to spam after warnings and blocks. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    criticalinfo.com.ng

    Atarhe Okejotor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    criticalinfo.com.ng: 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

    News scraper owned by user. Spammed despite multiple warnings and one block (see user talk page).

    Some diffs: Special:Diff/1033284340 Special:Diff/1040494283 Special:Diff/998191530 Special:Diff/1045045726 Special:Diff/1040664084 -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks like they were all added by the same account, which is now blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    boyfriendhusband.men

    boyfriendhusband.men: 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 website masquerading as a mirror to be included on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.

    Diff: Special:Diff/1045524647 SimoneBilesStan (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    thelaptopify.com , laptopified.com

    Using sockpuppets to evade scrutiny after collecting warnings. - MrOllie (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that Editmaster102 tried to blank this report. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    byscoop.com (removal)

    I have just gone through the reasons why my site got blacklisted and understood the way Wikipedia wants the content and the linking. My reason for posting my link was to give citations where ever possible. However, my purpose was never to spam the Wikipedia pages. Also, the warning given to me regarding this was on public IP hence I could not get it. As correctly cited, one of the functions of my website is of a news aggregator and the news published on the site is collected from various sources. The language used on my site is changed significantly so that our users may understand it in a very simple way. The same links of our site was used as citations on wikipedia pages just with a simple though to make the citation stong. Now since I have a good undestanding of what Wikipedia wants, I would reqquest you to unblock byscoop.com and give you the following reasons that the blocking is not required anymore: First: Unnecceasry links will not be added anymore from my side. Second: Links will be added only when proper content addition is made from my site.

    The reason why this will be useful for visitors is: that byscoop.com is an educational website and is in a growing phase. We keep an updated track on latest events in India. Hence we can very much help to keep wikipedia's content updated on time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:4:1845:2415:68c6:8c1c:26ef (talk • contribs)

    Comment 2405:201:4:1845:2415:68c6:8c1c:26ef (talk · contribs · WHOIS) triggered the spam filter on Vijay Rupani for byscoop shortly before posting this, suggesting that the blacklisting entry is working as intended. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "owner" admits to spamming the site, with the content usually copied from a more reputable site. So copyright issues there. A fair number of the times it was added there was already a high quality reference that supported everything meaning the additional was pure spam. And where they "rephrase" (and it's not much, at best), just use the original reference in Wikipedia and rephrase it here. Perfect solution! Can't see why this should ever come off the blacklist. Ravensfire (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you got me wrong. My purpose was never to spam Wikipedia. Also, try to understand the purpose of our website. Our website serves news content to students who are preparing for competitive exams. So we extract the most important part of any news and publish it in 3-4 lines. Apart from this, we also publish our original contents on topics like Banking. So in future we will not do any such thing that you consider as spamming. Whatever links we add in future will serve the purpose of Wikipedia. Hence I request you to remove this blacklist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:4:1845:2415:68c6:8c1c:26ef (talk • contribs)

    Why would Wikipedia use a news aggregator when we could simply use actual news articles from the original sources? (hint: we don't use news aggregators). Your site doesn't qualify as a reliable source for banking articles, and has no use on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You now we are on the same page. See I got your point that news articles can be linked directly from original news websites, so I will not link my news article. But our banking articles are of great use to students. These can be also helpful for the rest of the public if they add some info to Wikipedia content. All our articles on banking are regularly updated by us. So it is a humble request to remove the blacklist and give us an opportunity. And rest assured we will not repeat our old mistake which you termed as spamming.

    no Declined I'm sure you can find other venues to promote your site.OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No, its not about promotion. Last thing I can ask is, You can warm me this one last time, and if in the future a single useless link is shared you can block me immediately. No one would like to be blocked on a reputed site like Wikipedia that too for the work done in ignorance. So once again request you to unblock me with this being the last warning from your side to me. Thanks!!!

    For the last time, no. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    wowsurigao.com

    wowsurigao.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 was black-listed because it was consistently added as spam (see example), not as a valid reference, which I want to do now. No doubt people related to this website tried to promote their site, but I trust that after almost 10 years they have moved on. As a source for references it should be permissible and not indefinitely black-listed because of some actions 10 years ago. Of course, if this website is added again as spam, we can reevaluate. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see how a non-official tourism website would have any legitimate uses in Wikipedia, as it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sponsored content is not automatically unreliable. In this case, it involves uncontroversial info, rather matter-of-fact historical and geography info that I can't seem to source elsewhere. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it makes more sense to consider individual links on a case-by-case basis;  Defer to Whitelist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:58, 15 September 2021 (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.



    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1045601203"