MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images

    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 – 514866028 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

     

    Instructions for proposed additions

    1. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.
    2. Please only use the basic URL – example.com , not https://www.example.com.
    3. Consider informing editors whose actions are discussed here.
    4. Please use the following templates:
    {{IP summary}} – to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
    {{IP summary|127.0.0.1}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    {{User summary}} – to report registered users suspected of spamming:
    {{User summary|Jimbo Wales}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    {{Link summary}} – to report spam domains:
    {{Link summary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    Do not include the "http[s]://www." portion of a URL inside this template, nor anything behind the domain name. Including this template will give tools to investigate the domain, and will result in COIBot refreshing the link-report. ('COIBot')
    {{BLRequestRegex}} - to suggest more complex regex filters beyond basic domain URLs
    {{BLRequestLink}} - to suggest specific links to be blacklisted
    Please provide diffs ( e.g. [[Special:Diff/99999999]] ) to show that there has been spamming!
    Completed requests should be marked with {{done}}, {{not done}}, or another appropriate indicator, and then archived.

    This is a personal website that contains blogs that have been repeatedly promoted, despite warnings, removals, and a hidden comment advising editors not to add links to this site. The problem is at its worst on the article Lost in Translation (film), which includes these additions: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Other uses of the domain include [7], [8]. I offer my request here because these edits come from varied IPs, have come after repeated warnings, and because the site does not appear that it will ever have any encyclopedic significance, as one intended for personal promotion and blogs.

    NTox · talk 00:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

    myetymology.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

    Sometimes used as Sources (ref tags), but it not lists authors of texts.

    In the encyclopedia part of site (www.myetymology.com/encyclopedia/*) there is strange copyright text, e.g. here www.myetymology.com/encyclopedia/Symbols_of_Spain.html a text in the footer: 

    © 2007-2008 speedlook.com; article text available under the terms of GFDL, from fr.wikipedia.org

    If it was translated from fr.wikipedia, there must be link to list of authors. But there is no link. Also, if it is wikipedia-text based, it can't be an Reliable Source.

    The etymology part of site (e.g. www.myetymology.com/romanian/confec%C5%A3ionare.html ) has no such text about wikipedia; but lists no sources too.`a5b (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    This is a fansite that is constantly being pushed as a reliable source. I believe it woudl be best to block the site so it cannot be used, as it will never be considered a WP:RS.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    psiram.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 have seen this url for the past few days --Jim1138 (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

      Done--Hu12 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    ideabdl.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

    Obvious commercial spam. If it had just been one IP, I'd ignore it, but… —Kerfuffler  scratch
    sniff          13:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

      Done. Thanks for reporting, Kerfuffler. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Adsense google_ad_client = pub-0714374980750005 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report)
    Google Analytics ID: UA-7293561 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

    Spammers

    MER-C 13:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

      Done -- thanks for tracking all this down, MER-C. What a mess. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

      Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Thai-language site appears (based on some English-language headings) to offer "backlink packages". --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

      Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Domain:

    Corebrand's editors ignore repeated warnings about conflicts of interest and spam.

    Accounts used:

    Promotional article:

    Previously deleted promotional article

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

      Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

      Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Not a spam site but a copyvio one. Virtually everything I've seen on the site is copyvio, and Moonriddengirl and I would like it added to the blacklist. I've removed all the links now from articles, talk pages, AfDs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    wanttoknow.info: 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 should be added to the Foundation's global blacklist at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. The links appear on other Foundation projects, also.
    I will temporarily blacklist it here; let me know when it's been added at Meta.
    Thanks for dealing with this.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Completed Proposed additions

    Proposed removals

     Use this section to request that a URL be unlisted. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.

    Requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined. Otherwise, follow these steps to post a properly-formatted request:

    • Familiarize yourself with the reasons why a site was blacklisted. Look at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log to see who blacklisted the link and when, and the reason given for blacklisting.
    • At the beginning of your request, include the domain in a {{link summary}} template (remove the http:// and www from the domain). This provides tools to find more information on the domain. For example, * {{Link summary|example.com}} results in:
    • When previewing your post with an included {{link summary}}, you will find links to a COIBot-report ('COIBot'), linksearches on en ('Linksearch en'), and tracked discussions ('tracked' and 'advanced'). If the log did not provide sufficient information on why a link was blacklisted, these links often yield more information.
    • Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia.
    • Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore.
      • Note that the bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped.

    Providing this information often helps in a faster handling of the request.

    Once you have added your request, please check back here from time to time to get the outcome or to answer any additional questions. We will not email you or otherwise notify you about your request, and if no answer is received to a question, the request will be considered abandoned.

    Administrators: Completed requests should be marked with {{done}}, {{not done}}, or another appropriate indicator, then archived.

    I was trying to add a news link as a source and found that it is not possible. I thereby request the Wiki admins to review the site and remove it from the blacklist. Or atleast as of now whitelist this url: latestmoviez.com/kareena-kapoors-wedding-dress-revealed/

    Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.159.213 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Unfortunately its blocked due to Excessive abuse. However, there are plenty of alternatives availiable such as http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/gupshup/2012/kareena-kapoor-wedding-dress-revealed-096924.html  Declined--Hu12 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Well i do see that alternatives are available. I was just wondering how an authority site like that could have been banned. Anyways thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.159.213 (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Its not an authority site.--Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    It is Khalid here from LatestMoviez , i came here to try again for a removal from wiki spamlist. Sir, we are a team of journalists providing the latest Bollywood updates. Please remove us from the spam-list so that we can add our original unbiased critic reviews in the appropriate sections on wiki movie pages. All said in good faith, once we are off the spam list we will never give you reasons to get us back there. I have personally gone through all wiki guidelines and confirm that having understood them all will be done as it is meant to be. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.129.198 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Khalid, we've covered this ground many times before. Your people were happy to ignore us until they got blacklisted. We're not here to facilitate your business:
    Here are possibly related domains:
    These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted
    We do not remove domains from the blacklist at the request of site-owners. Frankly, we'd be crazy to do so in your case, given your organization's history of abusing our site.
    If your material is as excellent as you say, then should a trusted, established editor wish to use one of your pages as a reference, they can make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist to get a specific URL allowed for an article. An administrator will review the request and if there's a compelling reason and if your page meets the requirements of our Reliable Sources guideline, then a link to that specific page may be approved.
    Some search engine staffs may or may not refer to our blacklist when evaluating web sites for link spamming penalties. If they do this and if it affects your site's standings, I encourage you to take this up directly with the search engine firm; we have no control over this.
    I encourage you to never spam Wikipedia again. We sure don't appreciate it and in the long run, it's probably a very poor business decision for your company.
    I will review those other domains in the next day or two. I had planned to do this but forgotten until you raised the issue of latestmoviez.com again.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
    > I encourage you to never spam Wikipedia again.
    > [O]nce we are off the spam list we will never give you reasons to get us back there. I have personally gone through all wiki guidelines and [...] understood them
    Surely not ...
    > Please remove us from the spam-list so that we can add our original unbiased critic reviews [to] wiki movie pages.
      Rejected. No means no. MER-C 04:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    If someone were to actually read, analyse and review that site, they'd realise that it is not a hate group like the opponents pretend it is. As a matter of fact, I challenge anyone to find any misogyny (or for that matter, racism, homophobia or other kinds of description) on that site. Zerbu 02:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Looks like there's a lot of history there:
    It looks like folks then started linking to a redirect site to get around the blacklisting. They did this by link-hijacking -- replacing official links to university web-sites with these unrelated links.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Putting aside aspects of ideology, etc. I find the history of avoiceformen.org troubling. Clearly there's someone out there happy to add these links disruptively. We can't afford to surrender control of our article content to others that don't observe our editorial guidelines and policies, especially if they're going to be intentionally disruptive.
    Established editors are welcome to request individual URLs to specific avoiceformen pages be "whitelisted" at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist if they can show the avoiceformen page meets the requirements of WP:RS for the Wikipedia article they wish to use it in.
    As for removing the whole domain, we can't take the risk of further disruption.
      Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Completed Proposed removals

    Troubleshooting and problems

     This section is to report problems with the blacklist. Old entries are archived

    Is anyone else noticing the templates are no longer being rendered properly after a certain point on this page? I have posted a query about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template limit per page?. Like the template on top of this section works only when I edit the section and preview it, otherwise it simply renders on the full page as Template:notice. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    It's thanks to A.B. listing on this page far too many domains from some spam factory, along with the rather large output of {{LinkSummary}}. Archive some of those and we should be good. Anomie⚔ 02:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Template overload, I'll archive some..  Fixed --Hu12 (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks. At the Village Pump discussion referenced above, it was suggested that we adopt the convention of using "subst:" in our template usage to prevent this sort of overload in the future. I personally don't think that's practical, and would prefer a technical solution wherein short simple templates are exempt from the limit counter. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    hi; for some reason, your filter would not let me include google (.com OR .ca) search links in a discussion, which was very deeply frustrating. please fix and/or explain this? Lx 121 (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

    General google search links, such as this one, are not blocked. Google redirection links (e.g. those beginning with http://www.google.com/url?) that they use for tracking search result clicks are blocked globally, but that should not be a problem as you can just use whichever page the link redirects to. See meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Google redirect spam for the discussion of the original block. Anomie⚔ 10:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Logging / COIBot Instr

    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

     This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are archived

    There's a question at RSN about a possible malware site. Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Please_check_the_source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

    Ran the url through a few malware/threat detectors, seems its ok.
    Here are a few scanner tools that could be usefull.
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

    It would be useful to see who's triggering the spam filter and with which domains. In some cases, spam filter actions might just be triggered innocently by trusted editors -- trying to add a URL redirect out of ignorance, for example. In other cases, an event might be triggered by a spammer with multiple domains, one of which is blacklisted; in such cases, it would be helpful to use spam filter logs to investigate any other URLs he is successfully adding with his account.

    Is any record made of spam filter events? If not, can this be done? If nothing else, it could be written to our existing abuse filter logs.

    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

    No, no record is made. To make a record, someone would have to add the feature to mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist. Anomie⚔ 16:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
    I think there is a bugzilla bugrequest for this. I'll try and find it tomorrow, I think it is mentioned on the meta blacklist talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Bug 1542 on bugzilla. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply