Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2017-11

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

tiggi.es



URL shortener. MER-C (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Syum90 (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

knightstemplarcards.com
























MER-C (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

jimiwriter



Here are some domains they are spamming on Swahili Wikipedia.





















I've emailed off-wiki evidence to functionaries. Enwp volunteers requested it be listed here as they appear to be affecting several wikis. Bri (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bri:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

dw-inductionheating.com



Spammed over VPNs and by socks. MER-C (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist (see [1]). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

broadbandhk.com and a like













(Deferred from en-wiki) In Hong Kong, the ISP outsourcing the installation and marketing to other companies. The IP concerned added the spam site (a site promoting their own referral service) back to 2016 and undiscovered until today. After inspecting the page history another site probably from rival outsourcing firm was added to enwiki. The firms may just register another domain, but adding the existing one to spam list may help. Matthew hk (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

add more ip that was discovered by other user. Matthew hk (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
After inspecting the block log of User:Skykiller62, it was blocked in fr-wiki for adding the same auto-translate material as possible socks, which means it was unrelated translator, or a SPA created in order to insert the second url to other wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Matthew hk:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


Proposed removals

  This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted.

waremakers.com



This domain is on the global blacklist and I request it be removed. I am unsure why this domain was originally added but suspect it has to do with the domain being linked to multiple times over 2 days in 2016: [2]. I am associated with the owner of the domain and was not even aware of this blacklisting until yesterday.

After some investigation I found the linkreport above yesterday. Checking company records, in August 2016 a very keen student interned for the owner. It seems this person added content found on the domain as a Wikipedia source no less than 13 times. This makes the blacklisting understandable.

I ask the domain be removed at this time as this undesired behavior was solely the work of an overly keen intern spread out over two days. The domain is home to a reputable business covered by media such as Financial Times, The Guardian and Forbes. The business produces journalistic content that may be valuable to use as a future source. Henk Sluipert 14:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove this from the blacklist, it does not look evident that this would be used by encyclopaedias as a reliable or needed source. Noting that I blacklisted at the time due to spam, so I do not wish to be seen as the person to permanently decline. Local whitelisting may be an option if you can persuade a wiki that your material is of sufficient value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Henksluipert:   Declined. As per User:Billinghurst, I see no reason to remove. Whatever the reason behind, this looks like typical reference spamming, and I do not see that this is going to be significantly used (not much beyond what specific whitelisting can handle). Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: @Billinghurst: I don't know if it possible to appeal? This was indeed reference spamming but it was not intended - or even known by the domain owner until just a few days ago. The owner is deeply sorry about what happened and feels that if wikis have to ask for page-specific whitelisting it will mean the site will never be used as a reference. The editorial section of the site in question works with the skilled craftsmen industry and produces unique content based on research within the industry. Disseminating knowledge to a wider audience is a key part of the activities of the domain owner. Here is just on example: domain-in-question/the-post/leather-tanning-chrome-or-vegetable. A syndicated copy of this article ranks #1 on a Google search for keywords "chrome leather tanning". I don't want to spam this blacklist-page and I won't waste your time by appealing again, but I kindly ask that the domain is delisted. After this experience, the domain owner has put in place strict staff policies to make sure reference spamming, or any other spamming, on Wikipedia will never happen again. Henk Sluipert 15:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Henksluipert: Please note that blacklisting is not a judgement on the quality or integrity of a website, it is a means to control the addition of a link; these are definitively not punitive listings. Numbers of quality sites are added globally or locally at wikis, and then controlled addition allowed through local whitelists, as the information does not meet our guidance, or the addition is problematic. Personally, I don't see a compelling reason to remove the domain from the blacklist.

Of course it is possible to appeal, or maybe more accurately call that making a representation. You are doing so expressing your opinion to the community, and this site operates on community consensus. If there is a consensus of opinion here to remove it from the blacklist, then it will be removed. We can leave the discussion open for a week to a month allowing for that opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thank you. I appreciate it. My only aim here is to make it possible/easier for future wikis to potentially use the site as a reference. If nobody ever does that, then so be it. But the owner feels it is a little harsh keeping the entire site on the global blacklist due to the brief actions of an intern more than a year ago. A key motivation for the owner's business is to supply industry transparency and well-researched, unbiased material about "quality". Consequently it is disheartening to be blacklisted from being used as a reference by the world's number 1 source for unbiased information.

I hope other wikis will support the whitelisting of the domain. Thank you. Henk Sluipert 13:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Henksluipert: Umm, now I am admittedly a harsh marker but from my looking at your pages, the site could neither be considered a reliable nor an authoritative source, and I hardly think that many would sanction urls to the site. The fact is that the site was spammed here. The fact is that you are currently writing a paid-editing article at English Wikipedia and have not declared either that you are a paid editor, or that you have a conflict of interest. We are an encyclopaedia trying to provide the best information to users free of bias and commercial conflict, and plaintive cries of people "missing out" is a strawman. I have left instruction for you at your enWP talk page about addressing those local matters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

aluminiumleader.com



This domain was added to the global blacklist in 2008 after it was spammed in a number of Wikipedias in External links sections. A quick search showed that these edits were done by a single IP user. This site is run by a major aluminium producing company, Rusal, and does contain useful information to be cited, however, and I believe that nine years should be enough to fend off the spamming IP. I want to use the information from this site in en.wiki article Aluminium and possibly a number of others.--R8R (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra: this is one of your additions. The information from meta for this addition in 2008 is scant. Might you have other information, esp. at enWP that supports the addition of this domain?

@R8R: you can always seek a local whitelisting at the wiki where you wish to utilise the domain, and that often is a good progression step for removal from the global whitelist if we can determine local needs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@R8R and Billinghurst:   Removed from Spam blacklist. Note that I am particularly insensitive to a time argument (having spammers around for 7 years, 3 years of which while their domains are blacklisted in one case makes 9 years look rather short in this case ...). The usefulness consideration carries more weight, and that argument was made before by uninvolved. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!--R8R (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

China Highlights



Probably best treatment of Shanhaiguan on the internet. No good reason for it to be blocked afaict.LlywelynII (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@LlywelynII:   Declined nothing to do globally, it is a local block at enWP. Try en:Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

waremakers.com



This domain is on the global blacklist and I request it be removed. I am unsure why this domain was originally added but suspect it has to do with the domain being linked to multiple times over 2 days in 2016: [3]. I am associated with the owner of the domain and was not even aware of this blacklisting until yesterday.

After some investigation I found the linkreport above yesterday. Checking company records, in August 2016 a very keen student interned for the owner. It seems this person added content found on the domain as a Wikipedia source no less than 13 times. This makes the blacklisting understandable.

I ask the domain be removed at this time as this undesired behavior was solely the work of an overly keen intern spread out over two days. The domain is home to a reputable business covered by media such as Financial Times, The Guardian and Forbes. The business produces journalistic content that may be valuable to use as a future source. Henk Sluipert 14:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove this from the blacklist, it does not look evident that this would be used by encyclopaedias as a reliable or needed source. Noting that I blacklisted at the time due to spam, so I do not wish to be seen as the person to permanently decline. Local whitelisting may be an option if you can persuade a wiki that your material is of sufficient value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Henksluipert:   Declined. As per User:Billinghurst, I see no reason to remove. Whatever the reason behind, this looks like typical reference spamming, and I do not see that this is going to be significantly used (not much beyond what specific whitelisting can handle). Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: @Billinghurst: I don't know if it possible to appeal? This was indeed reference spamming but it was not intended - or even known by the domain owner until just a few days ago. The owner is deeply sorry about what happened and feels that if wikis have to ask for page-specific whitelisting it will mean the site will never be used as a reference. The editorial section of the site in question works with the skilled craftsmen industry and produces unique content based on research within the industry. Disseminating knowledge to a wider audience is a key part of the activities of the domain owner. Here is just on example: domain-in-question/the-post/leather-tanning-chrome-or-vegetable. A syndicated copy of this article ranks #1 on a Google search for keywords "chrome leather tanning". I don't want to spam this blacklist-page and I won't waste your time by appealing again, but I kindly ask that the domain is delisted. After this experience, the domain owner has put in place strict staff policies to make sure reference spamming, or any other spamming, on Wikipedia will never happen again. Henk Sluipert 15:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Henksluipert: Please note that blacklisting is not a judgement on the quality or integrity of a website, it is a means to control the addition of a link; these are definitively not punitive listings. Numbers of quality sites are added globally or locally at wikis, and then controlled addition allowed through local whitelists, as the information does not meet our guidance, or the addition is problematic. Personally, I don't see a compelling reason to remove the domain from the blacklist.

Of course it is possible to appeal, or maybe more accurately call that making a representation. You are doing so expressing your opinion to the community, and this site operates on community consensus. If there is a consensus of opinion here to remove it from the blacklist, then it will be removed. We can leave the discussion open for a week to a month allowing for that opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thank you. I appreciate it. My only aim here is to make it possible/easier for future wikis to potentially use the site as a reference. If nobody ever does that, then so be it. But the owner feels it is a little harsh keeping the entire site on the global blacklist due to the brief actions of an intern more than a year ago. A key motivation for the owner's business is to supply industry transparency and well-researched, unbiased material about "quality". Consequently it is disheartening to be blacklisted from being used as a reference by the world's number 1 source for unbiased information.

I hope other wikis will support the whitelisting of the domain. Thank you. Henk Sluipert 13:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Henksluipert: Umm, now I am admittedly a harsh marker but from my looking at your pages, the site could neither be considered a reliable nor an authoritative source, and I hardly think that many would sanction urls to the site. The fact is that the site was spammed here. The fact is that you are currently writing a paid-editing article at English Wikipedia and have not declared either that you are a paid editor, or that you have a conflict of interest. We are an encyclopaedia trying to provide the best information to users free of bias and commercial conflict, and plaintive cries of people "missing out" is a strawman. I have left instruction for you at your enWP talk page about addressing those local matters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Sorry, reopening this to add one more comment: As written to you yesterday on my enWP talk page I have not been paid anything whatsoever to add a page about Waremakers to Wikipedia. And I very much did declare the potential conflict of interest on that same page. I have not said anything about the world "missing out" if the domain continues to be blacklisted - merely pointed out that they actually supply well-researched industry information. I have previously given an example of a piece about leather tanning being the highest ranking link on the subject on Google. Another article on this site involving much research (/the-post/how-the-luxury-industry-makes-a-fortune-through-deception) was recently picked up by Huffington Post. I know exactly what Wikipedia is and have done my utmost to respect all the rules and to write a bias-free little page on this business. I don't understand the reaction I have been met with here. 15:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, you have added your comment. I will again set this to closed and to be archived.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.

Discussion

  This section is for archiving Discussions.

babelstone.co.uk



Today on Durch Wikipedia I tried to save a NON-PROMOTIONAL article about Tangut inscriptions and I kept getting an error message on my wireless phone, as this is one of the sources I used 3 (three) times I would assume that I got the error message because someone probably claimed that I have "an obvious COI" with BabelStone because I asked hin to upload some images from a museum on Wikimedia Commons. Every time I used this link 🔗 (which as far as I can see hasn't been removed yet from other articles) was to source content, this doesn't make it "a spamlink" and w:en:User:BabelStone never paid me or even asked me to place the link 🔗 for him, this must be a mistake and my sockpuppetry was about insulting a person, I've never made a single vandalistic mainspace edit in my life. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 09:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to request local whitelisting because I didn't add it to those other wiki's, and don't make every Wikimedia project collateral damage because I wrote a draft on a translation of w:en:Andrew West (linguist) but I can easily demonstrate that all the link additions was for content attribution. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 09:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  not blacklisted @Donald Trung: Not blacklisted anywhere that I can see. Error messages will tell you when the url that you are looking to add is blacklisted. Please don't guess and jump to a conclusion. You make more noise that a rusty gate, so I think that it is time to do be reflective of your approach and your knowledge gaps; you jump at shadows and make horrid assumptions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Your behaviour here starts to become rather tendentious (see also the request above for #History-of-China.com). It may not matter at all whether what you save is 'NON-PROMOTIONAL' .. you obviously do not have a single understanding why things get blacklisted, and your edits here and elsewhere in this area is plainly assuming bad faith. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Bad faith is removing sources from articles regardless of what it sources and regardless of whomever placed it without discussion or objective assessment or even an understanding of the language. As that risk is very real my assumption wasn't incorrect. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 11:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to say .. another set of assumptions. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

fivebooks.com



This domain is on the global blacklist, and I don't think it should be. It seems it was blacklisted in May 2011, as a spammer. The site is made up of interviews of well-known people, followed by their recommendations for books on the topic which is their specialty. I tried to add a quote from the Shakespeare scholar Stanley Wells to the King Lear page, and found that this site was blacklisted.

2.26.232.41 13:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  not globally blocked; this is locally blocked at English Wikipedia. You should make your application at w:Mediawiki talk:spam-blacklist  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata Query and tinyurl

Tracked in Phabricator:
task T112715

Hi,
This subject probably already have been discussed, but I can't find where. So I start it (again ?) here.
Wikidata Query SPARQL links are very longs. They use urlshortener from tinyurl, so these short urls are blocked EVERYWHERE on the WFM hosted sites.
There is a phabricator request to try to figure out how to change these short url, but I don't know how long it will take. So I write here to know if it is possible to block tinyurl only in mainspace ? Simon Villeneuve 12:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Simon Villeneuve: The tinyurl is blacklisted as it is abused, along with hundreds of other url redirect services. In the global blacklist it is a hard rule, no finesse. That said, each wiki has the ability to work around this by use of their MediaWiki:spam-whitelist which can take complex regex,though no ability to whitelist based on namespace that I can see. There are phabricator tickets about WMF having a redirect service and you would do well to contribute to those, and when the community again votes on their priority projects for 2018, there will be your opportunity to advocate further.

Personally I am surprised that there isn't a tools project to allow for query to write its own url redirects in conjunction with a closed service at toollabs: similar to how petscan saves its queries, but maybe I don't understand the enormity of the task.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:,
Thank you for the complete answer. Simon Villeneuve 15:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Simon Villeneuve: Please note that I would, probably vehemently, oppose using the whitelist on WikiData to whitelist a specific url-shortener for frequently used links (or any blanket whitelisting, for that matter). These url-shorteners cannot be restricted there to specific data, and hence be used in all fields, including in those which are rightfully blacklisted globally. One could then, e.g., replace the official website of a subject on WikiData with an abusive redirect link. That link then does get displayed on (all!) local wikis (if it is transcluded in a template, which many are). That means that a possibly harmful link will be displayed globally, ánd that all local wiki pages that transclude a certain property with a globally blacklisted link will be uneditable (as the wiki software parses the 'next edit' as an edit that adds a new link, resulting in the editor (confusingly!) not being allowed to save the page). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2017-11" page.