MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

From Safer nicotine wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

  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 - 20643 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
snippet for logging: {{/request|20643#section_name}}
snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|20643#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

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Owned (and spammed) by globally blocked user User:علي أبو عمر. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Adapted this report: diff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

After collecting warnings on Knowledgecrafter227, has now moved on to sock puppet accounts to avoid scrutiny, including 3 in the last day. - MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

After seeing the results of a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jones.ava109, I'm adding to this report, which was also added by confirmed sockpuppets. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we update this .su ccTLD name from .name domain? -- (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Multiple spammed domains

Domains that came up while investigating m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#xwiki_spam_links but were not spammed xwiki (or at least not enough to merit global blacklisting). GeneralNotability (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Link used by prolific sock (here and on fa Wikipedia and Wikidata) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mghghoffic/Archive for history. As the link has no use for anyone as a personal site hopefully it it's backlisted that will finally stop them from wasting our time at AfC and SPI. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@KylieTastic:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. I'll take care of it there. --GeneralNotability (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey GeneralNotability thanks for taking care of the wrong location :/ - my first time here in my many years and didn't pay attention. I wasn't aware of a global blacklist, but I agree that sounds like a much better solution. Thanks again KylieTastic (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
KylieTastic, no worries! It's not that blacklisting on enwiki would be wrong, it's just that blacklisting it xwiki would be better (since COIBot says they've also spammed it on fawiki and wikidata). GeneralNotability (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed removals (and

Why is (and its link-through on the blacklist, when it very prominently features as a main data property on Wikidata (see "Wikidata property" section here)? I've had to hide instances (i.e. <!-- --> ) on its page at The Movie Database accordingly, just to submit it's own English language page (Note. It already has a page on nine other WP languages).
Please remove. Thanks in advance. Jimthing (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I would guess for the reasons that were laid out the last time you asked about this: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2017#themoviedb.org_/_The_Movie_Database - MrOllie (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
That was several years ago, and things have certainly moved on. TMDb now appears on nine other WP language sites, and as previously mentioned above, has Wikidata properties. Link usage should now be allowed to follow similar sites like IMDb's usage: allowing "External links" section usage, but remain not as citation sources.
To be clear, I am in no way affiliated to either site (although I used to be a contributor to IMDb for a while), and they each take their data from user generated content overseen by moderation. Hence they should both be treated equally in regards to external links section use accordingly. A bad actor(s) spamming TMDb as citations from years earlier should not be used as an excuse to ban the usage of links from a site indefinitely from external links sections. Jimthing (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jimthing: no Declined. And you know very, very well why it is on the blacklist, Jimthing. You are very aware that Travis Bell was here promoting this site, you rewrote his draft which then got deleted, and now you are rewriting it again without significant notability. The only use of this site would be on its subject page, which can be handled by the whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Again, the whole article has been re-written with a load of extra information now added. So please can admins actually consider the facts as they are today please, which have absolutely nothing to do with past actions. Otherwise we'd forever ban things because someone at some past time, years earlier, did something. This is completely unfair way to judge current editors, who have no relation with those events whatsoever. I really am getting fed up of these past events being used to tarnish my efforts, when I had absolutely no part in them. Jimthing (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jimthing: Yes, there is a lot of info, and not a single reliable source showing it is notable. Anyway, with the passed spamming I would really just whitelist for one page - the subject page - and then do case-by-case evaluations whether it is useful elsewhere before de-listing. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Beetstra: While those discussions continue. Have WP considered renaming various Blacklist & Whitelist pages to Blocklist & Allowlist by now? Strange they remain on WP, TBH, as (outside the racism stuff) they're clearer. [EDIT: Oh, maybe not now then, lol!] Jimthing (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jimthing: yes, but that is not something 'we' can solve on en.wikipedia. It needs the developers of the MediaWiki software to change it. Also the 'spam' part in the name is a misnomer - there are many sites on the list that are not there because of spam, but because of other forms of disruption or because of community consensus. Moreover, there are 'technical' issues which are problematic. Those requests to change/upgrade though are, as usual, pending. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I want to request from the administrators and admins of wikipedia please remove my website I had given a work to my website editor to share my website on other platforms. But he makes a mistake and he shared a lot of links on a single wikipedia page. I had fired him from his job. I am really sorry for that. I am an administrator of and I want to make a request please remove my website from spam list. I guarnteed this website will never create any type of spam on wikipedia. We write quality content on my website I am really sorry for that mistake. We will never create any type of spam in future on wikipedia. Please remove our website from spamlist. Please forgive me and give at least one chance to rectify the mistake. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to resolve all the issues please belive me and our site and give atleast one chance to rectify my mistakes. I only want one chance. Please belive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshulv993 (talkcontribs) 05:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Rejected, bad faith request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

See here. It looks like it was banned due to being part of a paid-editing setup; without getting into the details, I'm not sure that's still relevant. The link I want to add is /a-correction-on-housing-regulation on that domain; I want to add it to YIMBY as it's an important addendum to Hsieh and Moretti on the costs of land-use regulation. grendel|khan 03:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Support removal. Rather surprising to see this on the blacklist. Looking at the logs and the page history, it seems that this entry was pointed out as mistaken right after it had been first added ("This is a legitimate, relatively prominent Economics blog where relatively prominent economists(Sumner, Bryan Caplan) discuss current issues in econ"). A partial whitelisting of the site several months later addressed some of the problems created by the initial block, but other relevant content remains blacklist. In any case, the supposed use in a paid edit happened almost half a decade ago, and I see no reason why (to pick a random example) the article Gustave de Molinari shouldn't link to the same online book as the corresponding German Wikipedia article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@HaeB: because the subject of the page is the author, not the book. See WP:ELNO, it is indirect. Moreover, I don’t see why we should link to a book that is not even mentioned in the text, and if it were to be added, our ISBN functionality is more than sufficient to find a copy. And since this book is now in the public domain, it can easily be added to wikisource. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Grendelkhan: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. The material was spammed by a paid editing ring with conflict of interest. Except for the encyclopedia practically all material is easily replaceable, you have a rare exception. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

'my site'

Please remove my site from spam list Adityakr495 (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Adityakr495: please read the instructions at the top of this page, and then tell us please which site you are talking about. Note that it is very, very rare that we remove sites from the list when site-owners request it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

Discussion seems to be scraping wikipedia including possibly drafts. I've noticed them a few times now used in AfC articles. A quick search showed only one, now-removed, use in mainspace but seeing as this will never be a reliable source should it be blacklisted?Slywriter (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed hundreds of links from this site; it's on a list of mirrors I watch for daily. In addition to mirroring the content of both main and draft spaces on Wikipedia, it's also a wide open wiki with zero editorial control. 90% of the time, this is used for self-promotional or spam articles. While I typically don't support adding mirrors to the blacklist, this one has been used abusively by a very large number of people. I'd be in favor of blacklisting it - there is absolutely zero chance of it ever being used as a source or an external link. Kuru (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kuru and Slywriter: I created a datadump in m:user talk:COIBot/LinkReports/ (there are too many records for a regular report). Can you have a look whether there is evidence for systemic abuse? Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Beetstra, I will take a look today.Slywriter (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)