MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. All additions and removals are also logged.


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 - 921934954 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
snippet for logging: {{/request|921934954#section_name}}
snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|921934954#section_name}}


Proposed additions[edit]

Natural News[edit]

There is strong noticeboard consensus at WP:RSN § Natural News to blacklist Natural News as a fake news website that primarily publishes conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. — Newslinger talk 01:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

officiallibracoin.com[edit]

Fake website, likely a scam, spammed to Libra (cryptocurrency) multiple times. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, everything by this guy. Saucy[talkcontribs] 04:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saucy: Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Saucy: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

movid.ml[edit]

Being used in 123Movies, seems to be a piracy site. Special:Diff/919718463, Special:Diff/919571937, Special:Diff/919566402, etc. --Majavah (t/c) 10:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Majavah: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

gujunews.in[edit]

Being spammed by multiple IP addresses. Ravensfire (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

hartforth.com[edit]

It's a personal website belonging to an individual (claiming to be "Sir Knight Dr Anton Anderssen, Lord of Hartforth" on social networking sites and CV sites on the 'Net) who makes false claims about having a British noble title, "Lord Hartforth", a title that doesn't exist, and then apparently using that to scam people in the US. Links to the site, along with the false claims about the title, have been added regularly to articles here for more than ten years now, primarily to Hartforth and Anderssen, being swiftly added back again every time it's removed (see recent page history of Hartforth). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomas.W, Did any of the social networking sites get added as well? If so, which? —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen any of the other sites being added here, I found them when doing a search on the name of the person, when trying to figure out what this was all about. When doing some research here on WP I also found accusations about the fake title being actively used for scamming people. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

freebooksmania.com[edit]

Continued spamming of a likely copyright-violating download site after multiple warnings and an initial short-time block (now indeffed). Should be an obvious case, but a second pair of eyes double-checking the situation would be great to be sure. GermanJoe (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: this may have to go to meta, but you have my blessing to blacklist it here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Woo-hoo! Your first blacklist addition! Congrats to GermanJoe, our newest spam wrangler! Guy (help!) 16:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
GermanJoe, he even found the script ... (take care, it has quirks, check if all is fine). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

politicaluprise.com[edit]

A seem personal blog like "news/current affair website" was spammed by the user. Google search show no hit, but echo of contributions of the user at Twitter (using Sajjadkazmi946), Instagram and Facebook (using the name "Political Uprising"). Wikipedia is not place to promote start-up news website. Special:Diff/920754286, Special:Diff/920755723, Special:Diff/920757508. Matthew hk (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk:  Declined, lets first see if the message gets through now, or after a block. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

zoominfo.com[edit]

This isn't the first IP/user I've seen WP:REFSPAMming links to this site in this way. I didn't record the others (but I can in future), but I've reverted almost identical WP:REFSPAM from at least half a dozen other IP/users in the last month or two. There may, I suppose, be occasions where this is a valid source for a reference, and there are, I know, existing links but I haven't seen any occasions where it's an irreplaceable, reliable source, and this is a campaign to use us to drive traffic to the site, imo. -- Begoon 09:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@XLinkBot/RevertList: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Begoon 12:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Beetstra, should [1] have therefore been bot-reverted? Or was I just too quick for the bot? If the latter then I'll leave any more I notice on my watchlist for a while to give the bot a chance... -- Begoon 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Begoon, I'll have to check, bot had hickups lately. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok thanks. It looks like the bot reverted one of 122.178.101.169's contributions - [2]. I've done the others now. Cheers. -- Begoon 14:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed this, so it seems to be working. -- Begoon 04:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This starts to be annoying:

All SPAs, same MO as previous IPs. It looks a bit strange to me that this is zoominfo themselves promoting ... (@Begoon:, maybe time for a RS/N to see if this is even usable?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra, there seem to be a couple of hundred existing links in article space (unless I messed up my search parameters). As I said above, I've not really seen a case where it's essential, and they are a commercial company who makes money out of selling access to their database, so I'm not sure. Joe job? Perhaps, but a pretty determined one if that's the case - and for what reason? Big time investment for a competitor or an ex-employee with a grudge, I'd have thought - but who knows... The Ips above all geolocate to India, but I guess the fact that someone might be outsourcing spamming shouldn't be too surprising. -- Begoon 06:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: I have a VPN, I can be everywhere in Europe, IP addresses are difficult things, and indeed, there are some countries where there seem to be a lot of sweatshops doing stuff. Joe jobbers tend to be just as persistent as spammers. XLinkBot does a decent job, but as you said, there are hundreds of links there, it may be good to investigate whether it is an idea to clean up and blacklist. (other option, EditFilter before XLinkBot). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok - I'll put it at RSN, see what others think. -- Begoon 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Beetstra, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Zoominfo.com. Cheers. -- Begoon 06:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

influencercash.co[edit]

User keeps posting link to page and seems to attach their user name to the end of the link. Probably an account trying to share personal link to gain on IFCO. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: thankyou for reporting this, but  Declined, I see only one addition and the user is blocked. If this persists on multiple accounts we will reconsider this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


ianring.com[edit]

IP has been persistently adding this link to various music articles. Link is being used repeatedly as a non-RS source to back various OR claims as well as being added to various external link lists. This has been ongoing since 2017. This was originally posted on WP:ANI here. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blackmane: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

gpkm.wordpress.com[edit]


A new website directly related to "Pastor Isaiah Ogedegbe" (see deletion log, and that's only one of the many names the same promo-piece has been created as) and his globally blacklisted "warritimes.wordpress.com". See these edits adding the new website on Warri. The new user account has been reported as an obvious sock of User:Vwegba4real. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

careersngr.com[edit]

Nigerian "careers website" that is being repeatedly added to articles about Nigerian government agencies etc. Sample edits: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed removals[edit]


Please could a different admin consider pv-magazine.com[edit]

pv-magazine.com: Linksearch en (http) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com

This has been requested many times over the past decade as you can see from my previous request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2019#PV_Magazine and the archives: [11]. I am not disputing their spamming many years ago but just saying that given the urgency of fixing global warming it is really a waste of editors' time to try to find other sources given that this seems fairly comprehensive and perfectly reliable. So I suggest it is time to give them another chance as I suspect some editors probably give up on their edits because of this blocking. Please could an admin other than Beetstra reconsider for a fresh view of the issue.

I often edit environmental articles about Turkey and the magazine has a section "www.pv-magazine.com/region/turkey/". For example the article "Turkey’s net-metering: Will commercial, residential or municipal lead the way?" is short but gives analysis hard to find elsewhere in easy to read English, so could be used to improve solar power in Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chidgk1:  Declined, sorry. As per prior requests, this is basically a trade paper that is based in large part on press releases and they are known to watch this page with a view to resuming linking, e.g. by employed writers (MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2016 § pv-magazine.com). There is no shortage of peer-reviewed engineering journals that are a substantially better fit for Wikipedia. --Guy (help!) 12:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: I agree there are good engineering journals but it is not really engineering I wished to write about in this case but government. To take the example of the article above I would like to write something like "According to local solar businesses the take up of residential solar is being hindered by the need to persuade multiple layers of government of its benefits." There is plenty of material for when net metering was introduced and how it might work (such as this) but little criticising how it is actually working in practice. Obviously government supporting English language media such as Anadolu Agency or Daily Sabah will not criticise the government bureaucracy. It is possible something might appear eventually on Google Scholar but meanwhile it is hard to find an alternative source to support my example sentence. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Chidgk1, then you can always find a non-english source (where pv-magazine likely based their report on ...), or decide to see if you can get it past a whitelist request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I would be prepared to bet money that the statement can be traced back to a lobbyist for a solar power company. Guy (help!) 18:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: Yes you are right, the article is based on the views of a solar power company and the writer has disclosed that his trip to the trade fair was paid for. My point is that the article is criticising government and is therefore not available in Turkish as the government controls the media here.Chidgk1 (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Chidgk1:  Declined. Badly spammed, in by far the most cases easy to replace. Just regurgitations of presss releases, nothing more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 Declined by another admin as well. Hope that helps. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems there is something wrong with this blacklist entry. See for example this diff from today. - MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, that particular one is on the whitelist. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Logging / COIBot Instructions[edit]

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 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 priviliged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


Discussion[edit]

facebook.com/jinnylimkeen[edit]

Shouldn't this edit have been blocked, based on the existing pattern \bfacebook.com\/jinnylimkeen\/videos\/10154591345794635\/\b. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1, no, the link misses the trailing / ... I’ll try to fix it later if noone else beats me to removing the last \/ Dirk Beetstra T C 03:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
AlanM1 I have truncated to \bfacebook.com\/jinnylimkeen\/videos\/10154591345794635. Next step is to just take out the whole facebook account with prejudice to taking out all others that then are used to circumvent. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

1920 Akron Pros season[edit]

I tried to restore a citation ("NFL History (March 10, 2003)") to this article that was removed a few years ago, it seems, because the archived URL was not working. The archived URL is working now, but the underlying URL leads to a malicious website; I thus can't add it to the "url=" parameter, even with a "url-status=dead" parameter. Accordingly, the archived URL will not display. Does anyone have any suggestions of how to resolve this? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Defer to Whitelist for the specific link. We'll have a look. Do post the link (you may need to break it or nowiki it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Beetstra. Do you mean I should ask about the link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist? The archived live, which is fine, is http://replay.web.archive.org/20070222012552/http://nflBREAKhistory.net/linescores/pdf/1920.pdf (note the insertion of "BREAK" in the middle) — the original link, however (which you can see at the end of the archived link) appears to lead to a malicious redirect. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Usernameunique, yes, this may be best solved through whitelisting. I guess now that this is collateral damage caused by the influx of sport merchandise spam (whole sets of sites with ‘nfl’ in the name. We’ll investigate there. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)