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 - 878725145 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
snippet for logging: {{/request|878725145#section_name}}
snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|878725145#section_name}}

Proposed additions[edit][edit]

Fan site, user generated content, edit-warring to include in articles per [1]. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist due to edit-warring to reintroduce. --Guy (Help!) 21:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Comedy Central admits refspamming their site for SEO purposes, described by an admiring fellow spammer here: Guy (Help!) 11:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Spammed by

and some IPs.

Repeated spamming for a bitcoin site, deceptive editing. Only warning has been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Spammed by

Isa (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I just removed one from ru and there's a bunch on fr. I'm not familiar with spam blacklists, should I move this request to the wikimedia-wide list? Isa (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Isanae: indeed, Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, that was quick and efficient. Thanks! Isa (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Spammed by

Blacklist please. —RainFall 05:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@RainFall: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Spammed by

This domain hosts an essay-writing service with no encyclopedic value. I've removed all links to from articles. — Newslinger talk 15:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

There is consensus on WP:RSN § Lawrence O'Donnell $4 million salary that ArticleBio is an unreliable source with incorrect information (possibly scraped), often mixing biographies and images of different people on the same page. Editors appear to be citing this domain in good faith, but nothing from ArticleBio is usable. I've removed all links to ArticleBio from articles. — Newslinger talk 02:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Alternate domains for, already blacklisted. One of these managed to get cited. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 13:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

No value, neither as reference nor as external link, forever, based on content and domain name itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Being spammed by several IP addresses, not a reliable source and quite probably copyright issues. Ravensfire (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Spammed by

Repeated spam for a fintech company from various IPs and a user, despite several warnings on IP talkpages and an attempt to explain the problem on the user's talkpage. More background details available per mail if needed for any admin. GermanJoe (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Hijack the article China Development Bank and insert the link and info of his company. Matthew hk (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Heavily being added across all the music articles, this gross unreliable website has been deemed to be worthy of blacklisting per discussion at WP:RSN as seen here. Spam reports show mainly IP users and notorious spammer MJDangerous (talk · contribs) adding them across multiple articles. —IB [ Poke ] 21:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@IndianBio: the tone of the WP:RSN discussion is similar to the discussion on fr.wikipedia. I am rather tempted to blacklist it there ... Defer to Global blacklist? (note, the editor mentioned has an admitted COI, and tends to edit war their links in).
Do you have any recent spammers of this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
(broke ping to user:IndianBio in previous edits). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Beetstra:, if I understand correctly, the metalink that you provided is where we can blacklist it correct? Regarding spammers, there was not any particular editor who spammed it recently, but a number of new editors and IP users had started adding it to the Lady Gaga articles, which is when I got interested. And backtracing I found it has been spammed hugely through the encyclopedia mainly by MJDangerous, who from the looks of it runs And this search shows me that multiple editors had already pointed out that it was a gross, unreliable source. Its just that no one had formally requested it for blacklisting. —IB [ Poke ] 16:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

URL shortener used by spammer. Ravensfire (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: Was already handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
As always, thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed removals[edit][edit] 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:

1. Website: wikifinancepedia 2. Reason: Our site is quite an older domain and have valuable articles. Many people trust wikifinancepedia for personal finance and financial planning. And the content does not violates any copyrights rule. 3. We have added information to where the links were used. 4. At this point.

Our intention was to provide useful information But since it was considered as spamming then we will not add any further links to wikipedia. Appreciate all your efforts in advance. Thanks!

 Declined. You spammed the site. We typically don't accept removal requests from site owners who spammed their sites. --Guy (Help!) 15:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[edit] 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:

It has come to my attention that a particular longstanding reliable resource under the name of has been blacklisted under the charge of it consisting of "user-generated content" which to my understanding is false. The associated discussion [2] on the topic has not even arrived at a conclusion and could not demonstrate any problem. - TurokSwe (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose - fan sites with no indication of any editorial oversite or official affiliation to use as a primary source WP:UNRELIABLE WP:FANSITE
Been blacklisted because of recent and past spamming seen here
--Moxy (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Strong support - But it is an editorially controlled trusted source (as opposed to being controlled by its users, which can only engage within the limits of the site's associated forum) and have multiple times featured exclusive contents, interviews, and reliable news in relation to the Alien/Predator franchise and the cast and crew behind the scenes and have multiple times been in contact with the people behind the franchise and have multiple times been cited by the fanbase as a primary source of information relating to this franchise. Please do show me where exactly it has failed to meet the required expectations, as you keep avoiding this, making up false accusations, and still insisting that there's supposed to be an issue. I also don't understand what you mean by "spamming" in this case and what the issue is actually supposed to be, especially as various sites are consistently being repeated on the articles in question as well as countless others all around Wikipedia with no problem whatsoever. Still suspect that this has all got to do with some sort of bias towards anything AVP-related, judging from past experiences with this franchise and its fanbase, and I still hold that AVPGalaxy has been too quickly blacklisted without proper justification. - TurokSwe (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If you were to read the links provided it would explain alot.....pls review WP:UNRELIABLE WP:FANSITE (#11). Just because your not willing to read the links doesn't mean we have not responded to your inquiries as this would be the 4th time the links have been provided.--Moxy (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I have read them, and repeatedly providing said links still don't really shed much light on things (in other words, they don't seem appropriate or justified here), but I've been asking for specific explanations. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments: @ User:TurokSwe: Words like "used as a primary source of information relating to this franchise" and "multiple times been cited by the fanbase as a primary source" are reasons for WP:FANSITE. Some of those "multiple people" may have "the franchise" more at interest than Wikipedia and "fanning the base". A "fan" may not realize or care how many times it becomes expedient to provide content they consider needing to provide the "primary source of information", and so the linking (spamming) cycle continues. If the site is allowed as a primary source on itself that does not mean that by making a reference to AVPGalaxy then a "self reference" claim can be used to advance the content on that particular page covering another subject. "IF" an editor decides to dig deeper those "fans" could come under scrutiny as not being here to build an encyclopedia. "IF" there is only a primary source then maybe there is not enough notability (outside a fanbase) to begin with. I didn't dig deep enough to ascertain a possible connection between the "fans", any ability to add to the site making it user-generated, and a level of over-site, but I am sure someone has/will, nor have I yet looked concerning unreliability as that would have previously been brought up. The burden to investigate why the site might now be reconsidered would be on you with evidence. Just requesting a delisting does not mean editors have to go back to the beginning and start from scratch to make a new determination. Many sites inundate Wikipedia and a lack of volunteer editors checking on this does not mean we can use other stuff as a reason we should just continue the status quo. I hope this has helped. Otr500 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

I've run into this filter multiple times so finally decided to investigate. This site offers useful bibliographic and historiographic summaries of writings on scholarly topics. Not passing judgement on the site's editorial reliability, many of its pages would qualify as expert self-published sources or otherwise, as self-published interview sources. The site is partly expert interviews (baseurl + /experts/) and partly user-generated content. Obviously, the site shouldn't be used for the latter, but it is very useful for the former.

It was blacklisted in May 2011 for spammers adding external links for an early version of the site (see Internet Archive, whose link is blacklisted). Is there any evidence that those spammers are still around? Its inclusion on other WP blacklists appears to be a direct copy of our blacklist. It would be a shame to lose this site as a resource for whatever happened in 2011. (I'd sooner see any further spammers blocked than the site blacklisted.) This request is just for, not or (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments: versus That can likely cause confusion. Apparently spammed. The user generated section is what shows up when the link is clicked. This can cause as much confusion as the close titles. The "about" sections states that "experts" are consulted and there is an expert section. I randomly chose Jon Burgerman that has a little information (there is a stub article on him) and he gives his five picks without any commentary. The Interviews with Ron Burgerman caption is followed by a link: [ Jon Burgerman on the best Playful Books for Children] that is interesting and I would offer educational. I am not sure on a classification of all the "experts"[by whom?], there is a link to buy his "book", and also in the about section there is the statement "Five Books participates in the Amazon Associate program and earns money from qualifying purchases. Another "Expert" pick: Kiran Millwood Hargrave is fairly new to the children's books (2017) and even newer to adult books (2020).
On a quick look I would state the editorial aspect would need looking at, but the interviews do include at least some famous people that would be considered "experts" in their field and offer reviews and commentaries. [ Mia Farrow] gives an interview and discusses her five choices. I find these in-dept, to be more than "self-published", and the "bibliographic and historiographic summaries of writings on scholarly topics" could be useful. I can see how the site could be spammed but that is not the fault of the site. Unless someone knows or sees something that I missed I agree with User:Czar. Otr500 (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Czar and Otr500: At the time of blacklisting the three were very clearly related to each other (they were spammed into one article about the subject as 'sister sites'), and it was very clearly spammed (one of the 2 SPAs mentioned in the blacklisting clearly links everything together, and both were clearly spamming - very likely people with a conflict of interest).

Now I do agree that I don't see much spamming for quite some time (blacklisting seems to have gotten the message through in this case), and it may be worth another try with this site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and I would hope someone would continue to watch as inundating Wikipedia with sites, as references or "External links", and even articles, has been an on-going issue and an "advertising" (spam) spot. It seems to me that if "money" is involved "someone" always tries to capitalize. I am confident there are still "people" around that may try to take advantage of it if allowed. Otr500 (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Otr500: minus Removed from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems[edit]

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. " (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.


Protected edit request on 14 January 2019[edit]

Current text:

Log your addition. All additions to this blacklist MUST also be logged here

Requested text:

Log your addition. All additions to this blacklist MUST also be logged here

Changes link format from link to external link style to internal link style.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)