Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anachronist (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 7 November 2012 (→srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.*: consider it done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    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.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    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 regular expressions — 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 – 521901274 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    www.makingsenseofcents.com

    makingsenseofcents.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com All coming from 68.188.100.150 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). The IP added the same link to three unrelated articles. I already reverted them. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Limited to one IP with no previous or recurring abuse  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    newageislam.com

    Opinion blog by a group of South Asian Muslims seeking to reform and make more progressive the political culture of Islam. May be a noble ideal, but seems to me to totally fail our standards of NPOV and notability. Ansdub persists in adding links to this site on any discussion of Islamic topics, even though repeatedly warned and given one short block. First time I've tried to do this, so I apologize in advance for any methodological shortcomings. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Other people are adding the links besides just Ansdub. One, for instance, is an established editor, Aliabbas aa (talk · contribs · count).
    I think this site is more than a "blog" -- it's apparently weakly notable.[1][2] with a growing profile and some notable writers. The Hindu has a long, interesting profile on the publication. It's possible New Age Islam might be used as a reference in the same way editors use political or religious opinion magazines like Commonweal, The Nation, L'Osservatore Romano, The Spectator or Quadrant -- not as a traditional reporter of facts but as a reliable reference when citing the positions of notable persons writing in the publication.
    I am reluctant to blacklist this domain now, especially since blacklisting here could get noticed by search engine staff investigating possible linkspammers.
    Having said this, you have a vexing situation. We have a bot that can be used to revert link additions under certain conditions; let's try that first. It can be set to block link additions by anonymous or new users.
    Thanks for dealing with this problem.
     Defer to XLinkBot --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



    newbooksinbrief.com

    Personal website repeatedly added to book articles, often with large chunks of copied text. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious Text dumping WP:CITESPAM with the author of the site going by the blogname "The Book Reporter" (newbooksinbrief.com/about/), WP:COI. Seems this is a single account incident in which the account is now blocked. I'm reluctant to add it, unless there is continued attempts to spam under multiple accounts. If spamming resumes, we should reconsider.  Not done (for now). Thanks for reporting Yunshui. --Hu12 (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    fu-vision.com

    Domain:

    Spammed article:

    Accounts:

    Persistent addition of this person's company website to the article. Can this be blacklisted? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added, Thanks for reporting.--Hu12 (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    printsasia.com printsasia.co.uk

    Scottaleger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) This user appears to be doing nothing but spamming Wikipedia. He's had received multiple warnings as you can see on his warning page. The page he is spamming are

    and

    Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a case for meta, as COIBot tells me 'Wikis where printsasia.com has been added: w:en (36), w:as (4), w:pa (1), w:ml (1), w:af (1), w:bn (1), w:sa (1), w:la (1)'.  Defer to Global blacklist --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    imexa.org

    Domain:

    Spammed article:

    Accounts:

    Persistent addition of a training institute's website into the article. Can this be blacklisted? Thanks. DVdm (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term persistent, multi account spamming. plus Added. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - Ip just made another attempt:
    41.124.148.206 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Question: I have reverted the edit, but, as the link was blacklisted 4 days ago, would a bot have undone this last edit if I wouldn't have been so fast? - DVdm (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a bot wouldn't have reverted it because there should be no need -- if it's already blacklisted it isn't possible to add a blacklisted link. The IP got around the blacklist by not including the 'http' part of the link.
    The link revert bot here is called XLinkBot, and imexa.org would have to be added to that bot's own blacklist for it to revert spamlinks, but XLinkBot wouldn't have caught this either because if there's no 'http' prefix, it's just a string of text and not a hyperlink. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, that makes sense, thanks. I guess we'll have to keep the page on wachtlist and revert until they get tired of trying. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    newcivilisation.com

    Domain:

    Accounts:

    Refspammer, likes to add rambling quotes from fairly unknown commentators while calling them 'prominant political scientist's. Always uses a fresh account/sock on each new article, presumably to avoid scrutiny. - MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    AdSense pub-8051308276480403

    Caution: Probably NSFW (I haven't checked).

    Adsense google_ad_client = pub-8051308276480403 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report)

    Previous incidents
    Sites spammed

    Somewhat related domains:

    Spammers

    MER-C 08:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, also added the related due to previous related abuse.--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    f1deals.com

    f1deals.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    So far in the past 24 hours this has been added by two different IPs:

    And two new user single purpose accounts:

    The later user claims that he was told to add the link to Formula One related articles, and despite being told not to continue to do so, went on a spree of adding the link to various other Formula One-related articles, before being followed by further anonymous IP edits. Since this user or users appear to want to continue to spam this link despite warnings, I believe it should be blacklisted to easily stop them in their tracks. The359 (Talk) 08:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just blocked another six single purpose accounts who were spamming this link. Rather than continuing to play whack-a-sock, a quick response on this one would be appreciated. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    Indeed. If you are in any doubt as to the prolific nature of these spammers please take a look at the last few days activity here. This needs stopping now, please. Pyrope 00:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Account list:

    Support blacklisting. MER-C 02:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much :). Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

    brickleberry.net

    Interesting pairing: adult video cam site and a children's cartoon site. Link-hijacking:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "Raised by the Stars" book spam

    Spam originates in the Montgomery, Alabama area.

    Spam promotes the book, "Raised by the Stars", and its author.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    graduateinjapan.com

    Google Analytics ID: UA-11990898 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

    Previous incidents
    Sites spammed
    Spammers

    MER-C 10:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Hu12 (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Lisa Stansfield Experience

    Previous incidents
    • The same site, one unofficiale and unreliable fansite on the singer, has been spammed on many other wikis. The "case" started on italian wikipedia, and has been object of and edit war even here and on es.wiki
    Sites spammed
    Spammers

    --Valerio79 (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist, I've requested Global blacklisting--Hu12 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Meta Blacklistingplus Added--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ebaliholiday.com

    Google Analytics ID: UA-35313402 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

    Spammers

    MER-C 12:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    kompenz-elastic.com

    Previous incidents
    Sites spammed
    Spammers

    More blacklist evasion. MER-C 11:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Hu12 (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    isbf.edu.in

    isbf.edu.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Serial spamming from multiple IP addresses, multiple times in business education related articles.

    These needed a /16 range block, which I have done until 11/12, but it's a bit too large for a long-term block. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    One more;
    Range
    --Hu12 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.*

    srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.jp: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com has already been in the blacklist for over a year. Apparently Blogger/Blogspot sites are now reachable from other TLDs (srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.jp, srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.de, etc.) and as reported at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Boris Malagurski editors have been able to post links to the blog using these alternative URLs. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I'd be in favor of either of these alternatives:
    • Globally replace the string "blogspot\.com" with "blogspot\.[a-z]+" in the blacklist. This would affect dozens of entries.
    • Blacklist all of blogspot.* and white-list on a case-by-case basis.
    The second option is my preferred option but others may view that as a bit extreme. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now that there are a lot of other Blogspot sites in the blacklist; I suppose your proposals are meant to deal with all of them en masse rather than srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com in particular. The first option is the least drastic change, as it affects only those blogs which are already in the list. The second option would greatly simplify the list in its present form, as it would replace some 350 lines with a single entry. However, I wonder how much collateral damage that might cause—surely there must be a lot of Wikipedia articles where a legitimate external link is provided to the subject's official Blogspot blog. Whitelisting all of these legitimate links on a case-by-case basis might end up being more work than blacklisting the spammy ones on a case-by-case basis. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points, and yes the first option is the least drastic. In my observation, most people notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article also tend to have their own blog on their own site, and don't use blogspot. Therefore I think the collateral damage would be minimal.
    Also, I could be wrong, but my understanding of the way the blacklist code works is that any existing blogspot links wouldn't be affected even if they happened to be in someone's edit; the blacklist would trigger if the link was somehow changed (moved to a different place, or deleted and then attempted to be restored).
    For now, consider your request  Done for the link you referenced; I just modified the entry. I'd like to see comments from other admins before performing either of the two things I proposed above. 22:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

    Completed Proposed additions

    Proposed removals

    latestmoviez.com

    The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

    I was trying to add a news link as a source and found that it is not possible. I thereby request the Wiki admins to review the site and remove it from the blacklist. Or atleast as of now whitelist this url: latestmoviez.com/kareena-kapoors-wedding-dress-revealed/

    Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.159.213 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately its blocked due to Excessive abuse. However, there are plenty of alternatives availiable such as http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/gupshup/2012/kareena-kapoor-wedding-dress-revealed-096924.htmlno Declined--Hu12 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well i do see that alternatives are available. I was just wondering how an authority site like that could have been banned. Anyways thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.159.213 (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Its not an authority site.--Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It is Khalid here from LatestMoviez , i came here to try again for a removal from wiki spamlist. Sir, we are a team of journalists providing the latest Bollywood updates. Please remove us from the spam-list so that we can add our original unbiased critic reviews in the appropriate sections on wiki movie pages. All said in good faith, once we are off the spam list we will never give you reasons to get us back there. I have personally gone through all wiki guidelines and confirm that having understood them all will be done as it is meant to be. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.129.198 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Khalid, we've covered this ground many times before. Your people were happy to ignore us until they got blacklisted. We're not here to facilitate your business:
    Here are possibly related domains:
    These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted
    We do not remove domains from the blacklist at the request of site-owners. Frankly, we'd be crazy to do so in your case, given your organization's history of abusing our site.
    If your material is as excellent as you say, then should a trusted, established editor wish to use one of your pages as a reference, they can make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist to get a specific URL allowed for an article. An administrator will review the request and if there's a compelling reason and if your page meets the requirements of our Reliable Sources guideline, then a link to that specific page may be approved.
    Some search engine staffs may or may not refer to our blacklist when evaluating web sites for link spamming penalties. If they do this and if it affects your site's standings, I encourage you to take this up directly with the search engine firm; we have no control over this.
    I encourage you to never spam Wikipedia again. We sure don't appreciate it and in the long run, it's probably a very poor business decision for your company.
    I will review those other domains in the next day or two. I had planned to do this but forgotten until you raised the issue of latestmoviez.com again.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    > I encourage you to never spam Wikipedia again.
    > [O]nce we are off the spam list we will never give you reasons to get us back there. I have personally gone through all wiki guidelines and [...] understood them
    Surely not ...
    > Please remove us from the spam-list so that we can add our original unbiased critic reviews [to] wiki movie pages.
    Rejected. No means no. MER-C 04:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I simply hope we can make things work out again. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.138.47 (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Blacklist evasion:
    MER-C 11:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another
    --Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Range 117.205.128.0/20 (talk • contribs • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Blocked, urls plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added 3 related domains: noaho.net, mp3gag.info, mybloggingways.blogspot.in
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Plain text spamming:

    Username matches discussion above. MER-C 13:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Registrant/Owner: Khalid Khan Spammer(s) blocked--Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to mention it here, but a few days ago I changed the regex to catch any TLD of latestmoviez. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Soundproof

    Soundproof Magazine has ended up on the spam blacklist...this is a Montreal music magazine. Can someone please point me toward the discussion that led to this site's blacklisting? Chubbles (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Using the archive search in the header of this page turns up MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2009#soundproofmagazine.com. Anomie⚔ 01:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, according to this discussion, the link was proposed for blocking due to COI spamming issues, which is fair...but it notes that the site was used as a legitimate reference by nonaffiliated editors, and the site is now out of business (which likely solves the spamming issue). Given that it was a third-party music magazine covering independent Canadian music, is it worth my time to campaign for its unblocking, or is the red tape here likely to be time-consuming? Chubbles (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Heres the request. If a specific link is needed as a citation, you can request it on the whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Chubbles, you say "the site is now out of business". Would you explain that? It seems to be working just fine, all the way down to copyright notices that pre-date the blacklisting — and, their 'about' page still lists Chris Stevenson, one of the acknowledged spammers, as a co-founder. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, I missed that this request got moved and only just came back to it. I was on their mailing list and they sent out a notice earlier this year that they were no longer publishing new articles, though the site would continue to function. (Since they don't date their articles, I guess that may not be immediately apparent on the site). They did publish a fair bit of useful review/interview material on Canadian musicians, and while I don't know anything about Stevenson (is this his only site or was he spamming multiple sources? Is he still active?), I do wish I could use the site's material generally for improving musical artist articles. Chubbles (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Stevenson spammed from an IP address (evidence here) so I have no idea if he's still active or what other sites he has.
    Unless I missed something, I didn't see any indication that the site has been idled. If it's true and it can be verified that the founders have moved on to other ventures, then it may be reasonable to de-list it, because it's unlikely that future abuse would occur. Until we learn more, it may be best to  Defer to Whitelist judiciously to white-list individual links. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Gayot

    gayot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    This is a request to remove gayot.com from the blacklist. After reading the reasons we were blacklisted, we feel that the blacklisting is not necessary anymore because it is understood that link spamming and single purpose accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia and we will have no part in self promotion or accounts that do such things. We only ask that our blacklist be removed so people inquiring information about GAYOT can find information about our company on Wikipedia. We also ask that our blacklist be lifted in case a page admin for a restaurant or hotel would like to add any accolades they receive from us on their Wiki page and be able to properly cite the information.

    Reason for blacklisting: # Ckatz # heavy spamming of site by multiple SPAs; use as :reference" as rationale for link spam

    .--jdgayot (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Jdgayot (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)jdgayot[reply]

    People inquiring information about Gayot can already look at the Wikipedia article on Gayot, which already contains a link to gayot.com. A restaurant or hotel adding accolades about themselves would be considered self-promotion in contravention of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and grounds for continued blacklisting.
    Furthermore, we do not remove sites from the blacklist at the request of the site owner or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor determines that gayot.com should be used as a reference, then we will consider a request from that editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    Troubleshooting and problems

    CSS properties trigger the blacklist

    I was creating a <div> on a page when I triggered the blacklist filter by changing its CSS properties. I entered the following code:

    <div style="overflow:auto;  <!-- trying to avoid filter here--> height:300px;"></div>

    Here is the error message:

    The following link has triggered a protection filter:overflow:auto;  height:

    I was able to bypass the filter () by adding a property between the two (background:transparent;), but I don't think this is supposed to happen.

    Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am unsure what triggered the filter - you mean the part where you put the comment? If it is within the nowiki-tags as you put it, you can write out the whole text that you put there, it will be ignored by the spam blacklist filter. Was there a link in the css? Can you show us the page? --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    overflow:auto;  height: – excluding the comment and extra space (I had to do this to avoid the filter when posting here). It seems like it happens with or without the nowiki tags. Sorry, but I don't have an example anymore because I changed the page. No, there were no links in the CSS. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite the message generated, this has nothing to do with MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The message you saw was caused by a match against mw:$wgSpamRegex in the server configuration. BTW, your userpage formatting is incredibly annoying, as it blocks view of half the page. Anomie⚔ 22:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it comes from the server config., how can this problem be avoided? I don't know what you are saying is blocking on my user page, but I think I may have improved it (I was trying some fixed div tests to see how they looked). –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was your talk page, sorry. You took out the position:fixed so now it's good. As you noted, the rule in the server configuration specifically blocks overflow:auto; height: (with a few whitespace variations), so getting around it is easy enough. The only way to get that changed is to talk to the m:System administrators, either by going to IRC #wikipedia-operations connect or by opening a bug in Bugzilla. Anomie⚔ 04:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instr

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


    Discussion


    Possible malware

    There's a question at RSN about a possible malware site. Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Please_check_the_source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ran the url through a few malware/threat detectors, seems its ok.
    Here are a few scanner tools that could be usefull.
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=521901274"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy