Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2021-02

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

mayboli.in



Cross-wiki spam target. -- Tegel (Talk) 12:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tegel:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Tegel (Talk) 12:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

spammed search url



Regex requested to be blacklisted: \brt\.com/search Search term being link spammed by spambots.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 10:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

sentragoal.gr



Cross-wiki spam target. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spamreport2525 (talk)

I have taken a look at it, but I don't quite yet see what the abuse is. Could you please give examples? --Wiki13 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
sentragoal.gr used to be a portal with original sports news. It has since removed all its original content and has been converted to a gambling affiliate website redirecting all the originally linked urls to its affiliate webpage. I understand that there's value in maintaining the archived links, but the original links are no longer leading to any relevant content and seem to be doing a disservice to the community. --Spamreport2525 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Spamreport2525 and Wiki13: confirmed. Thanks for the report.   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 23:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Notified elWP and enWP so they consider cleanups.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

your-hoster.de/info.php



Regex requested to be blacklisted: \byour-hoster\.de/info\.php The spambots are leveraging urls with your-hoster.de/info.php to spam redirects, or attempt to do so. I cannot see any legitimate uses of that through the global-search so will eradicate that as an attack vector. The discussion about the domain is one that I am not addressing, well not at this point of time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

experiencenissanleaf.com



Cross wiki spam, see en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/experiencenissanleaf.com — JJMC89(T·C) 17:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@JJMC89:   Added to Spam blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ambacar











Spammed on both enwiki and eswiki. I'm not totally sure what the company is—a car dealership maybe? I'm pretty sure it's only been added for promo purposes, but that should be double-checked (and hopefully this is an appropriate report for the global blacklist). See also en:WP:RSPAM#Ambacar.ec/cr spam. Perryprog (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that I'm reading more documentation on the spam blacklist I realize it might be a bit early for a report here with only two wikis, but leaving the report up for now. Perryprog (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Perryprog:   Added to Spam blacklist. I think multiple users adding it to multiple wikis over several years (I saw some as far back as 2018) is sufficient justification for blacklisting. I'm just going to blacklist ambacar.* since they apparently have no problem using multiple TLDs. --GeneralNotability (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Link shorteners







Link shorteners, such as `goo.gl` `bit.ly` `sh.st` could be abused. Finnh54 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

url shorteners are usually blacklisted on sight of usage. google is a bit problematic as there are reasonable fair use cases for their internal links. bit.ly is blacklisted, and sh.st hasn't been reported, so we can run a report to see what we need to do. We don't proactively hunt and list, as that is just an exercise in futility.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Finnh54 and Billinghurst:   Not done all three already blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

citylocal101.com









Spammed on enwiki, simple, cswiki. —Bruce1eetalk 06:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce1ee:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

treasurebox.co.nz





















Spammed on voy, enwiki, enwiki, enwiki, enwiki, enwiki, enwiki, enwiki, eswiki, cawiki, frwiki, ruwiki, ptwiki, jawiki. —Bruce1eetalk 13:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce1ee:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

groundreport.com searches



Regex requested to be blacklisted: groundreport\.com/\?s= Search link being used by spambots. global-search does not show this form of usage at the wikis. The domain is broadly used.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

finl.xyz (update rule for .xyz)



Do we really want to completely blacklist the .xyz top-level domain? This seems a bit heavy-handed. --99.63.176.143 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The offending entry is \bxyz\b --99.63.176.143 22:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  no such rule in place in global blacklist. Chat to English Wikipedia about their rules   Defer to w:en:Mediawiki talk:spam-blacklist  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

france-voyage.com



I'm one of the administrator of france-voyage.com. We received today a request from a user saying france-voyage.com is blacklisted on Wikipedia. I don't know if this is the right place to fix this issue, and I'm not sure what you need to solve the problem. Here is the message of the user (I can provide the email contact if necessary):

Translated message: Coming across an article containing the word "estacade" which I didn't know the meaning of, I searched Wikipedia and found this article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estacade - As often when it happens to me, I look a little further in the details than what the article says, and I find in the paragraph "Others" of this article a line which refers to the estacade de Saint-Jean-de-Monts, but without any details. Wanting to know more, I search on the internet (using the Qwant engine) and find your interesting article on this Saint-Jean-de-Monts here: https://www.france -voyage.com/villes-villages/saint-jean-de-monts-34110/estacade-34130.htm - As a Wikipedia contributor, I'm trying to include your page as a reference at the end of the line, as we can do with an article in Le Figaro or an internet page. But IMPOSSIBLE because Wikipedia detects a "global black link" or "local" there. I do not know exactly what that means, (this is the first time that I have had this red banner that opens when I want to publish my modification) but as your site seems serious to me, I think that your managers should contact the French managers in Paris at Wikipedia to resolve the problem. I'm at the origin of the 2 notes at the end of the line concerning this estacade at Saint-Jean-de-Monts.

Original message: Tombant sur un article contenant le mot "estacade" dont ne je connaissais pas le sens, j'ai cherché sur Wikipedia et ai trouvé cet article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estacade - Comme souvent lorsque ça m'arrive, je cherche encore un peu plus loin dans les détails que ce que l'article dit, et je trouve dans le paragraphe "Autres" de cet article une ligne qui référence l'estacade de Saint-Jean-de-Monts, mais sans aucun détail. Voulant en savoir plus, je cherche sur internet (par le moteur de Qwant) et trouve votre intéressant article sur cette estacade de Saint-Jean-de-Monts ici : https://www.france -voyage.com/villes-villages/saint-jean-de-monts-34110/estacade-34130.htm - Contributrice ancienne de Wikipedia, je cherche donc à inclure votre page en référence en bout de ligne, comme on peut le faire d'un article du Figaro ou d'une page internet. Mais IMPOSSIBLE car Wikipedia y détecte un "lien noir global" ou "local" . J'ignore précisément ce que ça signifie, (c'est la première fois que cela m'arrive d'avoir ce bandeau rouge qui s'ouvre au moment où je veux publier ma modification) mais comme votre site me semble sérieux, je pense que vos responsables devraient prendre contact avec les responsables français à Paris de Wikipedia pour régler le problème. C'est moi qui suis à l'origine des 2 notes du bout de la ligne concernant cette estacade de Saint-Jean-de-Monts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.167.220 (talk)

Context for the blacklisting: User:COIBot/XWiki/france-voyage.com#Discussion (from 2008). Courtesy ping to Beetstra, since you're the only one still around from that discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Not certain that the site would be seen as a reliable source and require removal from global blacklist. I would suggest that it would be worthwhile enquiring at   Defer to w:fr:Mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist and see if they will whitelist it for use. Remembering that the wikipedias are encyclopaedias, not travel sites. I would have thought that it would be one that could be used at Voyages, though I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of the site to make any big call.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I am with billinghurst here. This seems like a singular use, one link now for one page on fr.wikipedia. I would indeed discuss this on fr.wikipedia and see whether this one link, or the whole site, should be whitelisted. I note that, in 13 odd years, there has not been a single request for a whitelist on en.wikipedia.
@Marie-Walt:, as you tried to add this link, could you please comment on the use of the link? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, France-Voyage.com is a guide with a dedicated team visiting all sites of interest in France and writing unique articles. All official institutions in the country work on it since 2003. Content is always verified before publication. This website is considered as one of the most reliable source for tourism information in France, and is available in 10 languages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.167.220 (talk)
We are still an encyclopaedia. not a tourist site; have specificity about what are reliable source, and we will be guided by French Wikipedia.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
France-Voyage.com is as reliable as some other travel sources mentioned on Wikipedia such as petitfute, citizeum, or lonelyplanet. There are even numerous references to booking.com. Several Wikipedians mentioned they used France-Voyage.com as a source to write articles on Wikipedia, but the references are not specified because of this very old entry in the global blacklist dating back from 2008.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.167.220 (talk)
We are managing the situation where this domain was considered "spammed" at wikipedias to the point that it was requested to be blacklisted, especially due to the query about it being a reliable source. Further, the wikis have guidance on what to do with unreliable sources, so if you are seeing examples for consideration, then please use that process to have them removed. Pointing to other examples of use of unreliable sources in an encyclopaedia is not the way to win this argument; you have been directed where to argue your case.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
81.185.167.220 that material on your site is checked by you does not make it reliable (see en:WP:RS), and there is a large difference between presenting the truth and being a reliable source.
That France-Voyage.com is 'as reliable as some other travel sources mentioned in Wikipedia' is not a fair comparison. First, maybe they are not reliable either and should not be used as they are, or they are used in a specific way. Secondly, and probably the biggest difference, is that the other sites were not spammed. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why our domain was considered "spammed", since we as a company never practiced this. We might have been attacked long time ago by a competitor that managed to add our domain to the global blacklist in 2008. It seems now impossible to get removed from there. Even if several Wikipedians use our content as a source without referencing it, and even if other users requested removal like on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2013-02 - Directing this request to French Wikipedia doesn't seems appropriate either since 50% of our audience is outside France and our content is in 10 languages. The blacklist removal request rejected in 2013 was made by a german user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.162.255 (talk)
Adding to the spam list is not about punishment, it is instead about restriction where the links are not required, or are out of scope.

You have been directed to frWP as that is where you were wishing for the link to be added. At this time, we have provided you with a solution to start your conversation with a local wiki about the use case, you can follow that suggestion or not—no skin off my nose.

The explanations above would be said to be our thoughts of how the community could assess any request, and was provided as thinking material for your whitelist request. Now you are expressing disapproval of our guidance and are expecting us to remove a community requested blacklisting of the site that you represent. Seems that you are neither listening nor understanding the situation [feel the room!] and you are too wrapped up in your own site, your privilege, and your conflict of interest; you have stopped representing an editor, you are not presenting the best value, or best sources for the encyclopaedias. I feel that the conversation is at an end, you have been given our advice on how to progress.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not being able to reference a source is not good for Wikipedia. Some Wikipedians are still using our content even if you disapprove it, but moderators are not even able to see it as this blacklist listing doesn't even allow to mention it. As an administrator, Wikipedia is the first place I see where blacklist removal is not possible. It seems also very easy to blacklist any domain through a simple attack, and keep it there forever. You haven't even heard the argument that pushing back to frWP is not appropriate as we are in an international context here. There are probably progresses to be made on your side too. In the meantime, we will have to redirect complaining Wikipedians to this one-way discussion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.162.255 (talk)
81.185.162.255 we said that it was spammed, we did not say that it was spammed by you or one of your employees or even suggested that you hired a company to spam it for you. Maybe it was a competitor, all fine with us. All we did was protect Wikipedia against unwanted link additions. And lets go into your argument that it was not you or one of your employees, how are you then going to guarantee that this is not going to restart the moment that we delist it? You obviously can't.
This incident occured in 2008. I believe we can be confident 13 years later it will not occur again. Or if you go this path you would need to blacklist all domains, "just to be sure".
But a source can be referenced, if people need it they can ask for whitelisting. Point is, that no-one on en.wikipedia has done that. No-one found it so useful that they went for whitelisting.
This is wrong. Here again is an example of whitelist request made in 2013: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2013-02#www.france-voyage.com
We have given you a path forward to delisting, go to the French Wikipedia (where, obviously, the link is most useful), and start the discussion there about whitelisting specific links (and see how they are received), or whitelisting the whole domain (more challenging probably). If the French Wikipedia whitelists the whole domain, you could move on to en.wikipedia and see how your links are received there (same procedure, go for whitelisting). If those two wikis see the value of your links, then you have a solid case to come back here. We will still be worried about link abuse, but if people think it is useful (now we only have your word for it), then at least we have reason to risk having to clean up the spamming of your contributor (which, at first, will also be easier to handle since it only affects one wiki, maybe two). Until you follow that path, here it remains   Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure we want to waste more time on Wikipedia now, it seems pretty useless...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.162.255 (talk)
You indeed spent a lot of time discussing here, instead of earlier going to where we suggested you to go and maybe (probably!) make some progress. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.

Discussion

  This section is for archiving Discussions.

Camella Manors Spam Websites































































This took a bit of work, but pretty sure this is the comprehensive list of domains and users that have been spamming them on various articles. It's been primarily enwiki, but they've had a few trips to Commons as well as an attempted addition on metawiki. Not every domain listed has been crosswiki, just a few—because it's all part of the same crosswiki ring, though, I'm putting this here. It looks like a few of the domains are all in a similar IP range, possibly cloudflare; I'm not sure if something can be done with that. I've also left out a few users that are much older—the only accounts listed have (unless I messed up) edited in the last year or two.

Here's the best example of how the domains tend to be tied together (similar things happen in mainspace, too—mainly on en:Vista Land, but I can't easily see what pages they have made that have been deleted), and here's an example of what the most prolific uploader looked like on Commons (only one or two other users uploaded images on Commons).

I'm going to guess it would be worthwhile to look into global locks or CU'ing them, but I'll leave that decision up to someone else. Perryprog (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh—and one other thought is this does seem like it could be fairly viable as a 🍯, as I wouldn't be surprised if the users behind these accounts just went to boring old text as advertisement instead of attempting to add backlinks everywhere. I'm not sure if that's a standard practice in this area, though. Perryprog (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Perryprog: I know that we are only seeing "after cleanup" results, though what we are seeing does not definitively indicate abuse; well not enough to put them into the global blacklist without a larger consensus. You can set COIBot to do some monitoring on the domains if that is of value to you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Billinghurst, I'm not sure that I agree—the link spam is clearly deliberate, and there is definitely some socking or WFH meat-puppetry going on here. However, I am OK with waiting a bit to see how the group will decide to continue their efforts in order to have a more informed decision as to what preventative measures should be taken. Perryprog (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstand my comment. I am saying that it is not evident that the editing is out of scope for all wikis. I am seeing some allowance at Commons, especially with an account that has over a million edits for a portion of the domains. So it could be that the abuse is only occurring at enWP, especially noting difference in policies around paid editing between enWP and Commons. So for that list to be globally blacklisted it needs more than enWP's say so and hence a broader consensus, or we need to pare it down.  — billinghurst sDrewth 18:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: what is recorded by COIBot on commons is all reverted or deleted, and obvious spam. I’ll dive a bit deeper in a bit. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst and Perryprog: OK, so camilla.com.ph is linked from c:File:9990kfQuirino_HighwaySan_Josefvf_01.JPG, added in 2015 by user:Judgefloro. I however fail to see the utility of the link in itself, it is a website promoting the sale of land / property (in that area??), it is not the source of the image, it is not providing any more information about the area or content of the image (well, currently it redirects to the root of the domain). Fact is, that there are accounts like COHObyVistaLandofficial, Vistarecidences, and Vista Residences Inc that are spamming this. Blacklist, remove the stuff that is unneeded, and consider to whitelist the links that are really needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Beetstra, sounds good. From my own investigation I am very doubtful that any of the links are needed (at least currently). Currently there's still similar types of spam happening on enwiki here. (Poor XLinkBot tried :(.) Perryprog (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
And the Commons community works out what links they do and do not want, and how to deal with an editor with 1.6M edits. They should also express their opinion on the domains to build that larger consensus. Nothing holding enWP up from blacklisting now.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Billinghurst, this is a bit interesting—I hadn't noticed those uploads by Judgefloro (and yes, I did misunderstand your earlier comment—sorry!), and that may indeed change things. The current links that seem to be legitimately used on Commons is the camella one and the goldenhaven one (see their respective major wiki search). I do see only one addition of a Commons upload from one of the users listed that also included an external link; the rest were just promotional by way of text or the image themselves. There's also the attempted page creation on meta at Lumina. That means there's really been just one external link addition each on Commons and meta that was actually by one of the user's listed, while the rest have been on enwiki. Perryprog (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Perryprog and Billinghurst: though I have very little hopes on spam that has already crossed the borders of one wiki, I would suggest that you report this to en.wikipedia's spam blacklist and we will see from there if that is enough. (Note, the page on meta was completely promotional). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So reading all of this discussion, and reviewing everything again, these additions are generally promotional and violate enwiki's ELNOT rules but aren't necessarily spammy enough to merit a global blacklisting. Let's hand this off to enwiki and see how that goes. Also, I removed what may or may not have been Judgefloro's response - it was from an anon user and was written like it was supposed to be a legal verdict instead of something readable.   Defer to w:en:Mediawiki talk:spam-blacklist GeneralNotability (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Report created. I just realized I made it on the WikiProject Spam talk page, but hopefully that doesn't matter in this case. (I also don't want to move it again as COIBot is getting poked enough as it is.) Perryprog (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Blacklisted on en.wikipedia now. I hope this solves it. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2021-02" page.