Wikipedia talk:Spam-blacklisting

Order of sections
Hi Hu12. I think the section order needs be rearranged. There are two types of user who will seek Spam-blacklisting help. Firstly the average user placing a request for an admin to consider adding the link to the black list. Secondly an admin who seeks to carryout the blacklisting.

However an admin might not be sweeping through the proposal list, but rather as in my case trying to do the whole thing myself and at a loss as to which page to look at or what comes first (i.e. I was not responding to another editor's proposal). Therefore on trying to add to the backlist, as per your kind details, I realised that I would need add a log and that in turn required a link to a full explanation, but there was no request by anyone else... hence I ended up with 3 simultaneously open edit screens at once. In otherwords one can't file a log entry unless there is a request section in existance (as the log needs to link to the evidence), and one can't go blacklisting unless one can also add a log entry - hence the request comes first ! Seems obvious to me now (doh!), but not to an unfamilar admin (i.e. me) who locates the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and vaguely notes they will need to also add a log entry later...

So I propose this outline of a sequence in the guide for unfamiliar admins:


 * Admins, if you seek to blacklist an external link then please ensure you proceed in the following order (full details of each step given in the rest of this help page):
 * There needs to be a clear request already in existance that describes the situation. If this has not yet been created by another editor (eg at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist), then you will need to create your own full description that shows persistant spaming and the involved registered or IP-anon users. This is required so that others may later review the reasons for the blacklisting. So please add a request to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. (Then click on the "History" tab as you will later need the version number of the article as evidence - see part 3)
 * Add the external link to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist
 * Finally add a log of this action to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log. You will need in this log entry to link to the original request details (i.e. link to request of part 1 above).


 * 

David Ruben Talk 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've so rearrange sequence order, hope your approve :-)
 * I also added both the intro paragraph and a few section headers.
 * Correction need: whilst WPSPAM is fine in first exmple of location to link to, it is not the right template to use for the User:Hu12/Spam-blacklisting section. David Ruben Talk 14:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reads better rearanged. If there is not evidence already in existance to link to(at ANI, WPSPAM, userpages ect.), other admins in the past just post it in the request section and tag a done to it. This is a quick and easy way to consolidate newly aquired evidence or alot of evidence spread out over several pages.--Hu12 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Added (somewhat awkwardly) possible places a request may be encountered, also copied&pasted over the Spam-blacklist proposed additions info on what to include in a request (heavily abreviated down). The examples of linking to a request needs
 * Switch to giving WP:SBL as primary excample and then WT:WPSPAM as second example seems the better location ?
 * Hu12, as mentioned above what is template for providing a historical section link for WP:SBL ? WPSPAM is for WT:WPSPAM, but what is used for WP:SBL ? David Ruben Talk 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no template for historical linking just a regular full link like this will suffice (archives are fixed sections). I've uniformed/expanded the logging instuction a bit more.--Hu12 (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Plan a move to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklisting shortly, so add to your watchlist. --Hu12 (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests only?
I may be too harsh sometimes, but I do not only blacklist because there is a request or an item on WT:WPSPAM. I think this document should also provide the possibility of blacklisting with just providing proof. I add some links where I have someone adding complete rubbish. E.g. with viagra spam I don't bother warning, that stuff just can't be added in good faith, and has no place here. In that case, I just add an appropriate rule, and link to a Special:Contributions, a COIBot report or similar. No need to discuss the real rubbish IMHO, as long as you have proof that it has been pushed (and blacklisting just stops disruption in that case, right?). Comments? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Other possible proof:
 * Special contributions of a user
 * COIBot report
 * OTRS ticket
 * Mail to the foundation (extreme case ..)

More? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Some work still needs to done here. All those scenarios (IMHO) need to be included. Proposal? --Hu12 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I have linked to user contributions & to COIBot reports. For other than contributions a "permanent" link is important even for apparently static pages - in time they may change.
 * Certainly I agree with Dirk a request is certainly not the only way to get something on the list (I listed a collection of porn spam that an IP placed on Meta a while back for example) -- Herby talk thyme 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * True, true. We've also blacklisted sites auctioning (off-wikipedia) cash bids to linkspam wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't think we should use links to proof that is not hosted on wikimedia. In those cases, just prepare a request section, that you immediately close, and add the regex to the blacklist.
 * As for permanent links to proof, reports can be blanked and deleted, still they are on the mediawiki server, and it are admins that are reviewing requests anyway, so they can see the deleted reports. Permanent links are nice (especially when things are moving into archives), but not always a necessity.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Page name
Good job Hu12 !

I think though having this as MediaWiki:Spam-blacklisting is a confusing name to describe similarly looking/sounding MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, given that other admin action pages are named for the action (ie "MediaWiki" just scares me :-) and is not where I would intuitively look). I've just located Spam blacklist which is but a very brief description, so would it not be better to replace that page by this far more comprehensive hand-holding-through-the-process guide for admins who are likely to be unfamiliar with this aspect of their mop? Also that page has, I think, a better shortcut option of WP:BLACKLIST than just WP:BLACK :-)

This topic needs to be added as a brief section (with links) to the Administrators' how-to guide. I'm not sure about also adding to Administrators' reading list.

Anyway I'm away for next 4+ days, so will catch up next week :-) David Ruben Talk 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is more directed to guide administration of, rather than a "guideline" for the artcle space.--Hu12 (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Removals?
I think this also needs dealing with. I certainly know of one instance where a removal was made on Meta with no rationale at all which is as bad (worse) than listing with no rationale. Transparency/process whatever needs to be there & clear. -- Herby talk thyme 12:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

When I asked in the Wikipedia help chat about removal (auto-reversion) of a link to a TED talk on youtube, two moderators said that this XLinkBot is sometimes overzealous. TED's overall mission is to research and discover "ideas worth spreading." TED talks are not for the purpose of profit, like official music videos. The talk was by the person who was the subject of the Wikipedia page. I posted a link containing ted.com with the exact same content to wikipedia, and it was allowed to remain, yet the youtube link was removed. I don't understand this. Unfortunately, not all TEDx talks are on ted.com, so it would be nice to be able to post youtube links of TED talks to Wikipedia.Lindamarcella (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move
Move Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems like it belongs in Wikipedia namespace rather than MediaWiki namespace. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I think this is in this namespace because of the programming of the software. If that is not the case, and the page can be moved, then I would like to suggest in the same move to get rid of the word 'spam' in the blacklist.  We blacklist way more than only 'spam'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Wow, my mistake, this is not the blacklist itself.  Seems like a good plan then.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)
 * I think you're thinking of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist; I'm pretty sure this one can be moved.
 * I don't see any majoy issues with moving to the Wikipedia namespace - although I wonder if it should instead be merged into existing related Wikipedia namespace articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this has been moved from the MediaWiki namespace, and these are instructions for administrators on editing and customizing the interface text for our MediaWiki software, improper changes to it can cause Wide spread disruption to the MediaWiki web interface. Changes should only be made by knowlegable administrators familiar with regex, and the software running on the Wikimedia Foundation projects. Proctecting this as high risk.--Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

spammydomain.com
I realise this may be considered nitpicking, but "spammydomain.com" is a poor choice of domain to use as an example in this page due to the potential that it may one day be a legitimate and viable domain with valid content to be linked to. I recognise that this choice of domainname was chosen for clarity of example, but surely it fails any neutrality test. "spammydomain.example.com" would satisfy both clarity and neutrality. Thoughts? --.../Nemo (talk • Contributions) 05:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * example.com (and .org, .net) are already set aside as reserved example domains to avoid potential name clashes and preserve neutrality.
 * "spammydomain.com" is not actualy blocked, nor is it hyperlinked nor would it be affected at all. Plenty of search results indicate widespread use of this domain being an appropriate and illustative domain, particularly for the administration of the Wikipedia project. --Hu12 (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio from a blacklisted source
Hi, there's a discussion here where Moonrddengirl has suggested that we find a way to exempt copyvio templates from the blacklisting process. Input from someone on this page would be appreciated, whether it is possible to fix this or not.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Crap multi-misuse websites
What about sites that but are crap, and are easily cited by the lazy, naïve or dim?
 * are not spammed
 * don't contain porn, scripts to screw up one's browser (or worse), or goatse-style shocks
 * don't contain copyvios

I've asked about this here at WP:RSN, but there's been next to no response. I'd prefer not to duplicate the (non-) discussion here; please look and respond there if interested. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, discussion will now start at WP:VPP. Hans Adler 11:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Word boundaries
Instructions on how to add an entry currently say:  Use simple domain regex. For example  http://www.spammydomain.com  would read;
 * \bspammydomain\.com\b

That's simple, but not really correct.

The blacklist logic is a bit surprising (I would call it broken, I don't think it was intended that way) in that it doesn't ignore subdomains but any domain prefixes, which is why the word boundary  is used in the first place of course.

The problem is that  also matches "not-spammydomain.com" since the hyphen is not considered a word character and we thus have a word boundary. This is usually not a problem: Few prefixes will turn "0hourasiangirls.com" into a domain we want to link to, but with e.g.  and   just now it was (geology-guy.com, cable-car-guy.com, canadian-soccer.com). The second word boundary is also wrong of course, but I can't think of a realistic example where this would be a problem; If we blocked http://www.de with the current technique we'd also inadvertently hit http://www.de-beers.com/ or such, but meh.

We can only solve this with lookbehind: Use  instead of the first word boundary and we're safe. Second word boundary would have to be (?:[/?#]|$) to be correct. '' That's not quite correct actually, see below. ''

I am BTW by no means the first to figure this out, I now see that there are four other entries in the blacklist (market.com, explore.org, safety.com, passion.com) that solve this pretty much the same way.

I've changed the instructions page to recommend using  instead of the first word boundary.

Amalthea 23:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Australia does not allow to register second level domains directly, any commercial domain will always lie in .com.au meaning that any \.com\b entry will also block the Australian domain of the same name. For example, The Examiner (Tasmania) uses examiner.com.au and was hit by the block of examiner.com until whitelisted. The collateral damage when adding a blacklist entry can't really be estimated (Special:LinkSearch can't tell that in advance), so if you want to get an exact domain match, you'll need to use  from now on. Yikes.  Amalthea  12:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you blacklist page moves?
How do you prevent particular names of moved pages? For example, words containing "hagger" with nonsense characters between the letters. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs)
 * Please ping me if you reply to this section. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove XLinkBot suggestion
Hi. This page currently says the following: "Before blacklisting, please consider the following" [...] "Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step?".

I think this suggestion should be removed, the last additions at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList appear to be from April 2015; there have been 5 new requests since then with no response. This bot is not being maintained. -- intgr [talk] 08:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, it appears that user just took a long wikivacation and he's back in action now. -- intgr [talk] 07:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A bit of rewording?
We're told:


 * There should be clear evidence of disruption, persistent spamming or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines

Huh? I'd guess that this should be something like:


 * There should be clear evidence of disruption, persistent spamming or other behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines

I'd reword it myself, but I'm fairly new to this rather important page and therefore thought that a second opinion might be valuable. Indeed, spamming is a kind of disruption, and it's hard to think of other behavior that violates blah blah without being disruptive, so perhaps simply:


 * There should be clear evidence of persistent spamming or other behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines

-- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 February 2018
Within "tion - Finally add a log of you action to MediaWiki talk:S", change you to your. 97.95.160.180 (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLACK
I've revised WP:BLACK to redirect to WikiProject African diaspora. It was not widely linked-to anyway. Can this shortcut mentioned on this page be removed and perhaps replaced by something else? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed, if someone makes a new one it can be added in the future. — xaosflux  Talk 11:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Unclear on what the spam is, exactly.
I found a broken cite URL so I googled the topic and found the same article on a child page. I updated the URL and got a spam warning.

But what exactly does spam mean in this context? I looked on the various pages for this sub-project, but failed to find a single clear definition. Does it mean:


 * 1) the web site in question is posting links to the Wiki to drive up page rank?
 * 2) the web site sends content to the wiki or its users?
 * 3) the web site is low quality?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why my website is blacklisted
I made some edits on wikipedia, and today I got to know that my website is being blacklisted can I know the reason

This message shows

"The text you wanted to publish was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a forbidden external site. The following text is what triggered our spam filter: lionjek.com" 2401:4900:4714:1E59:B5EF:A611:2E30:E508 (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)