MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If reporting a problem with a domain, please write the name as site dot com instead of site.com, or you will trigger the blacklist again! If your site is currently on the blacklist and you wish to have it removed please comment below under the section about why the site was blacklisted in the first place (if there is no such section create a new section). Note that sites blacklisted due to violation of Wikivoyage policy will only be removed once the editor in question has indicated that they have read and understand the relevant Wikivoyage guidelines. Repeat offenders will generally not be removed from the blacklist.


Archives:

archive dot is and archive dot md[edit]

Links continually spammed by Ljupco, and has absolutely zero purpose here. Wayback machine is what wikipedia uses, and is much more reliable for archived links than archive dot is. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? archive.org is the domain of Waybackmachine – it changed its name long ago, though waybackmachine.org still works (as a redirect). But those other archive.* seem unrelated. –LPfi (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
archive.is is different from archive.org. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said. archive dot still includes archive.org. –LPfi (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Analysing some of his edits like this, Ljupco seems to just randomly put archive links for no apparent reason (he does this on simple all the time, but those made more sense). Anyway using the EF rather than the blacklist whether we can do this? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The filters have the advantage that you can see the attempted edit and whether it makes sense or is just rubbish. With the blacklist false positives are much more difficult to spot. –LPfi (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although one thing: Why does somebody need to randomly insert archive links in articles? Makes sense on Wikipedia and Wikibooks, but not here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this wiki generally shouldn't have archive links, as it's important for our links to be up to date. Wikipedia is more interested in historical information than we are. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed – in the main namespace. But linking archived pages can be very useful on talk pages and perhaps sometimes in project space. The filters allow that kind of fine-grained control. –LPfi (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe SelfieCity added that onto 37, but it was removed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did (17 August, 09:08). And the expression as added applied also to talk pages, so I removed it (also, "." in that context matches any letter, not just a dot). –LPfi (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the changes at 01:51, 10 August 2021 (I don't want to link it though). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw those, but they were more specific than yours (which I also did not want to link, you'd find it by timestamp). Anyway, blacklisting should be done only for spamming sites. Innocent sites misused by a vandal can be handled by the filters, which can be made specific enough. –LPfi (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove .is, but also an FYI, it's being blocked by my computer's spam filter. But keeping .md SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tripneter dot com[edit]

Porn link added by spammer on the Spain page. The dog2 (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

www dot busrentdubai dot ae[edit]

Spammed to Dubai three times. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sockshopandshoeco dot com[edit]

This is a legitimate URL of a business. Can it be unblocked? —The preceding comment was added by Historys Stranglers (talkcontribs)

That URL is not on our blacklist, yet it does seem to be blocked. I can't find it on the global blacklist either. Perhaps there's some conflation between sock shops and sockpuppets? Other than that, I'm not sure what's going on.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons! and @Historys Stranglers I'll put it on the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Hope that works. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

panpacific dot com[edit]

See the pub for discussion. Temporarily blacklisting until the discussion has come to an end. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist Pan Pacific Hotels Group and Ascott or not?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

We have one or more inveterate IP hotel marketers who persist in ignoring attempts to communicate with them and block-evade to post listings for Parkroyal hotels, which use panpacific dot com, and Ascott, using US dollar figures for hotels in countries like Sri Lanka and Malaysia that don't accept dollars. Blacklisting these chains' URLs may be the only way to have a chance to stop this abuse, but that would result in loads of deletions of Ascott service apartment listings that were previously put up by a group of publicists. Maybe that's no loss. Would anyone like to argue that this site can't afford to delist all accommodations from these chains? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent instance of touting and block evasion by Special:Contributions/175.157.178.255, I strongly support blacklisting the links. Thanks for blocking this IP Ikan Kekek. I don't think it's a loss at all – they touted, too bad that they failed to follow Wikivoyage guidelines and are now blocked. I'll change the duration of the blocks for the other IPs (I was going to do that but I fell asleep trying to revdel w:ja:LTA:SLIME's edits) in the next hour or so. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This will be a serious undertaking, so I think we should wait 24 hours to see if there are any objections to blacklisting these URLs and removing all the listings. Some of the listings we'd remove are several years old. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I extended the blocks of some of the other IPs used by this tout though I might've missed some. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we try to reach somebody with whom we can discuss? Did we succeed the last time we had a similar situation? I think hotel chains understanding that hiring touts isn't a good strategy would be good, and having to remove chains one after another is quite depressing, especially if there are no good alternatives at some destinations. –LPfi (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it worked when I contacted the touts behind Hilton. The challenge was finding the right people to contact.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy for someone to do that, but I just blocked another block-evading IP account for 1 month and think we should delist all these chains' listings now and blacklist their URLs for now, regardless. LPfi and ThunderingTyphoons!, your opinions on that, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to post here, but Ikan beat me to the second. But anyway, this is getting ridiculous. I've temporarily blacklisted that business until this discussion has come to an end, but if they're going to behave like an IP-hopping vandal but instead with touting, I think its an obvious case we shouldn't keep their listings. They've ignored all our messages and blocks – what can we do now? Of course, we can contact them externally as what LP and TT said, but I think ignoring messages on their talk page and bullheadedly continuing to tout is already enough that they're not here to follow our policies. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies, which include disallowing paid publicists for hotel chains to post any new listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should the block(s) be extended to three months and treat this IP like what we do with long-term wandals using IPs? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm fine with an interim blacklisting while the longer-term strategy is worked out, though if we do find a solution that doesn't involve a permanent blacklist, that would be far preferable.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist, which requires removal of the URL on every page, or just Special:AbuseFilter, so that new links can't be added by IPs (or newcomers)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklist. But if there's a consensus behind trying to do this via abuse filters, we can try it. I'd rather blacklist and delist, then have people plead to remove the blacklisting later and explain why. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are both major chains in Asia, so I don't know if we should do a blanket blacklisting. I would go with contacting the appropriate person in their management first to ask for their cooperation. The dog2 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a much better solution. It is not sure that the chains even know about the touting, they might just have made the mistake of hiring somebody who turned out to be a tout. Does blacklisting mean that nobody can add a competitor an a page until their entry is removed? At least to begin with we should instead have an abuse filter that just hinders adding listings for them. We might go removing entries, with a bot if we are going to remove many of them, but I think we should contact them first.
I think we have some abuse filter that work in the needed way. Does somebody remember which one? I suppose we should create a new one for this, which can be reused when the next similar tout pops up.'
LPfi (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we should prevent non-autoconfirmed editors from adding a listing until we get a satisfactory response from their management. But completely blacklisting them might be going at bit far. Not allow them to be listed is the equivalent of banning listings for the likes of Hyatt, Mariott and Hilton. The dog2 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noted I was able to edit a page with a blacklisted URL, while I cannot add it to the graffiti wall (even as admin). Seems it works as intended. Some editors might be quite confused though, when not able to list those hotels. –LPfi (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vrdental dot co dot in[edit]

Blocked as promised on 2 user talk pages. Dental clinic trying to list itself among a list of hospitals. It should be clear that we can't list all oral surgery clinics in Hyderabad! Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

araliyaresorts dot com[edit]

Repeatedly spammed in several Sri Lankan articles by 3 IPs and counting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]