Talk:Spam blacklist: Difference between revisions
Herbythyme (talk | contribs) |
→handster.com: another domain |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 588: | Line 588: | ||
{{done}} --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 07:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
{{done}} --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 07:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
===handster.com pocketpcaddict.com=== |
|||
Widespread cross-wiki spam. See [[en:WT:WPSPAM#spam.handster.com spam.pocketpcaddict.com]] for list of (shared ip?) spammers. [[User:121.221.75.186|121.221.75.186]] 10:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed removals == |
== Proposed removals == |
||
Revision as of 10:54, 4 October 2007
For more information on what the spam blacklist is for, and the processes used here, please see Spam blacklist/About.
Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, or Troubleshooting and problems, read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In addition to that, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. Other discussions related to this last, but that are not a problem with a particular link please see, Spam blacklist policy discussion.
Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.
- Information
- List of all projects
- Overviews
- Reports
- Wikimedia Embassy
- Project portals
- Country portals
- Tools
- Spam blacklist
- Title blacklist
- Email blacklist
- Rename blacklist
- Closure of wikis
- Interwiki map
- Requests
- Permissions
- Bot flags
- New languages
- New projects
- Username changes
- Translations
- Speedy deletions
snippet for logging: {{/request|697543#section_name}}
If you cannot find your remark below, please do a search for the url (link) in question with this Archive Search tool.
Spam that is only affecting a single project should go to that project's local blacklist, if available: ENWP
Proposed additions
|
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. |
paydaycreditlive.com
My wiki has been attacked by IP address 75.36.17.229; his spam message was:
Convenience of Online Payday Loan Companies Online cash advance companies offer detail information about the cash advance process. Thus, applicants will not ...<a href=http://paydaycreditlive.com>pay day loan franchise</a>
Please blacklist this user... God Bless... 124.83.17.55 11:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- No spam on any Wikipedias according to Eagle's tool. Is this site even run on WMF servers? JzG 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
www.earn2001.cn, www.earn2000.cn earn2002.con and earn2003.cn
This spammer has attacked several forums; maybe if you include these to the blacklist, it would be better... 124.83.17.55 11:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Got evidence of spamming - diffs etc please - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
minorurl.com and gourl.biz
Two unrelated URL redirection domains similar to tinyurl.com:[1][2]
- minorurl.com
- gourl.biz
--A. B. (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Done by someone --Herby talk thyme 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
flowers-photos.eu
cross wiki spammer
Adsense pub-8879998788993004
- wiki project spam case
- Accounts
- 87.4.2.66
- 80.104.1.53
- 80.104.1.191
- 80.104.2.75
- 87.4.3.128 and de.[3]
- 80.104.1.53 and de.[4]
- 87.4.3.128 and fr.[5]
- 87.4.3.55 nl. spamming
- 80.104.2.193 it. spamming
- 80.104.2.22 simple. spamming
- 80.104.0.169 and es. [6]
- 217.200.200.54 fr. spamming
- 80.104.1.53 and de. [7]
Thanks, --Hu12 15:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Done Nick1915 - all you want 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
\.endangeredspeciesinternational\.org
Dozens of semi-related pages repeatedly hit by linkspam. See all contribs from this IP, that user that user, etc. The pattern is basically to spam repeatedly until a last warning is issued then switch identities/log off and start over. — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting ... this American "charity" is not listed with Charity Navigator. It's not mandatory, but lack of a listing is not a good sign. --A. B. (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- They are listed with onepercentfortheplanet.org --A. B. (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how relevant that would be. I think spamming is spamming even if the "cause is just". Acting otherwise is applying editorial control on which sites can be promoted and that's a big Pandora's box of worms I wouldn't want to get close to with a ten-foot pole (how's that for the mixed metaphors!) — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 16:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, nevertheless, I am faster to recommend blocking spam from a purely useless site. I may give a more legitimate site another chance or two. However, in this case, legitimate or not, endangeredspeciesinternational has had many, many chances and just needs to be stopped now. --A. B. (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how relevant that would be. I think spamming is spamming even if the "cause is just". Acting otherwise is applying editorial control on which sites can be promoted and that's a big Pandora's box of worms I wouldn't want to get close to with a ten-foot pole (how's that for the mixed metaphors!) — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 16:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit histories on en and fr.wikipedia:
- en:Special:Contributions/66.245.14.104
- en:Special:Contributions/69.109.121.171
- en:Special:Contributions/70.231.139.217
- en:Special:Contributions/75.60.27.198
- en:Special:Contributions/Endangered11
- en:Special:Contributions/Lolololol12345678
- fr:Special:Contributions/75.60.27.198
--A. B. (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Done Nick1915 - all you want 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
wikimages.org
Massive cross-wiki spam. The domain was registered 21-Sep-2007 by Itzhak Ahdut through Registrar GoDaddy.com. That was one day after bunchofphotosabout.com was blacklisted, and that domain too was registered by Itzhak Ahdut through Registrar GoDaddy.com. Now there are 88 links to wikimages.org in the 57 lagrest wikis + many in the smaller wikis.
IP's spamming:
Sample edits:
--Jorunn 20:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Three more related domains to blacklist:
- animalstube.com
- bunchofvideosabout.com
- Both the above have been spammed by some of the same IPs associated with bunchofphotosabout.com and wikimages.org
- biz-vision.org
- The whois registrant for some of these domains
- --A. B. (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Three more related domains to blacklist:
Done Nick1915 - all you want 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia.try.hu
Cross-wiki spam. (More Szilva96 spam)
IPs spamming:
Sample edits:
--Jorunn 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Done Nick1915 - all you want 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
smartdots.com URL redirection domains batch 1
See Talk:Spam blacklist#Smartdots.com redirect sites (permanent link).
Here's the first batch from that list of URL redirect domains to be blacklisted:
- au.tc
- co.at.tc
- co.at.tt
- co.uk.tc
- com.au.tc
- es.tc
- hk.tc
- hu.tc
- ie.tc
- it.tc
- kr.tc
- me.uk.tc
- me.uk.tt
- mx.tc
- org.uk.tc
- pl.tc
- se.tc
- shop.tc
- th.tc
- ua.tc
- uk.tc
--A. B. (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Done Nick1915 - all you want 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Smartdots URL redirect domains cleaned up and submitted for blacklisting
Links have been disabled or removed from articles in most or all of the 57 largest Wikipedias:
- au.tc
- co.at.tc
- co.at.tt
- co.uk.tc
- com.au.tc
- es.tc
- hk.tc
- hu.tc
- ie.tc
- it.tc
- kr.tc
- me.uk.tc
- me.uk.tt
- mx.tc
- org.uk.tc
- pl.tc
- se.tc
- shop.tc
- th.tc
- ua.tc
- uk.tc
Supporting data:
au.tc
co.at.tc
co.at.tt
co.uk.tc
com.au.tc
es.tc
hk.tc
hu.tc
ie.tc
it.tc
kr.tc
me.uk.tc
me.uk.tt
mx.tc
org.uk.tc
pl.tc
se.tc
shop.tc
th.tc
ua.tc
uk.tc
--A. B. (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Remaining smartdots URL redirect domains to clean up and then blacklist
- at.tc - all links removed from article space
- at.tt
- au.tt
- be.tc - all links removed from article space
- be.tt
- bg.tc - all links removed from article space
- br.tc - all links removed from article space
- ca.tt - all links removed from article space
- ch.tc - all links removed from article space
- ch.tt
- co.uk.tt
- com.au.tt
- cz.tc
- de.tc
- de.tt
- dk.tc
- edu.tc
- es.tt
- eu.tc
- eu.tt
- fr.tt
- int.tc
- it.tt
- net.tc
- nl.tt
- no.tc
- org.uk.tt
- ph.tc
- pro.tc
- ru.tc
- uk.tt
- us.tc
- us.tt
Supporting data:
at.tc
at.tt
au.tt
be.tc
be.tt
bg.tc
br.tc
ca.tt
ch.tc
ch.tt
co.uk.tt
com.au.tt
cz.tc
de.tc
de.tt
dk.tc
edu.tc
es.tt
eu.tc
eu.tt
fr.tt
int.tc
it.tt
net.tc
nl.tt
no.tc
org.uk.tt
ph.tc
pro.tc
ru.tc
uk.tt
us.tc
us.tt
--A. B. (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
2π English panorama spam
england-360.co.uk
chester360.co.uk
york360.co.uk
wales360.co.uk
scotland360.co.uk
bath360.co.uk
See en:WT:WPSPAM#4π^2 English panorama spam and en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul#2π English panorama spam. Spamming with dynamic IPs too. 124.182.9.46 09:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please skip this request. Only three of the 6 domains is owned by the spammer (Bath, York and Chester), and the user has promised not to add these three links again. COIBot is still monitoring the links. --Beetstra 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough - let us know if the problem returns - thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't archive this just yet -- there's still discussion underway at en:WT:WPSPAM#4π^2 English panorama spam. If you look at that discussion, it now appears there was more (21 different projects) to this than initially thought. Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the spammer does own england-360.co.uk as well as the York, Chester and Bath domains. The other 2 are unrelated. --A. B. (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I personally recommend proceeding with blacklisting the 4 domains above plus these two related domains:
- harrison-associates.co.uk
- novay.co.uk
- They've not been spammed yet, but I am concerned given this spammer's persistence in spite of at least 9 warnings that I counted.
- I personally recommend proceeding with blacklisting the 4 domains above plus these two related domains:
- Here are edit histories I found:
- bg.wikipedia:
- cy.wikipedia:
- da.wikipedia:
- de.wikipedia:
- en.wikipedia:
- en:Special:Contributions/81.76.6.188
- en:Special:Contributions/84.64.16.158
- en:Special:Contributions/84.64.176.101
- en:Special:Contributions/84.64.181.111
- en:Special:Contributions/84.65.0.7
- en:Special:Contributions/84.65.127.14
- en:Special:Contributions/84.65.43.218
- en:Special:Contributions/84.66.191.34
- en:Special:Contributions/84.66.22.31
- en:Special:Contributions/84.66.63.4
- en:Special:Contributions/84.66.84.60
- en:Special:Contributions/84.67.165.31
- en:Special:Contributions/84.68.176.240
- en:Special:Contributions/84.68.240.35
- en:Special:Contributions/84.68.26.251
- en:Special:Contributions/84.68.82.46
- en:Special:Contributions/84.69.125.229
- en:Special:Contributions/84.69.54.202
- en:Special:Contributions/90.240.130.190
- en:Special:Contributions/90.240.233.80
- en:Special:Contributions/90.240.246.229
- en:Special:Contributions/90.240.246.241
- en:Special:Contributions/90.240.93.216
- en:Special:Contributions/90.241.143.254
- en:Special:Contributions/90.242.45.200
- en:Special:Contributions/Panoyork
- es.wikipedia:
- fi.wikipedia:
- fr.wikipedia:
- gl.wikipedia:
- it.wikipedia:
- ja.wikipedia:
- nl.wikipedia:
- nn.wikipedia:
- no.wikipedia:
- pl.wikipedia:
- pt.wikipedia:
- ru.wikipedia:
- simple.wikipedia:
- sv.wikipedia:
- tr.wikipedia:
- zh.wikipedia:
- Note that there is only a partial consensus on en.wikipedia to blacklist these links; the spammer has appealed our blacklisting recommendation, offering as an alternative:
- "I promise that I will not add any more external links from today onwards, if I can just add/keep 3 to these cities." [8]
- I believe that's a bit rich, given this history. I also believe that if some on en.wikipedia really want these links (I'm not one of them), then they can be whitelisted locally but that the other projects need the protection of blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here are edit histories I found:
Done (4 domains only) & thanks for the work - I fully agree local whitelisting would be the only option (if required) for someone as persistent as this --Herby talk thyme 07:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
AVRIL LAVGINE
SPAM LINK- WWW.WORLDWIDEALBUMS.TK whatever —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.62.44 (talk • contribs) --Nick1915 - all you want 19:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
See also [9]--Nick1915 - all you want 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Done--Nick1915 - all you want 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if someone left some diffs or edit histories for the record. The problem with leaving linksearches for the record is that there's nothing to see after all the links get cleaned up.
- Perhaps many more links were cleaned up that were spammed, but when I look at the links on fr.wikipedia, they were all added by different high volume editors. The one link on es.wikipedia was added by an editor with about 500 edits and no warnings. All the other links turned up by a linksearch are on en.wikipedia; I did not check them out. If there weren't more links on other wikipedias, then maybe this should only be blacklisted on en.wikipedia. The blacklisting request came from a British IP, so I'm guessing the person was concerned with links on en.wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
1000ways.org
1000ways.org has been added repeatedly to en:General Electric, despite consensus at en:Talk:General_Electric#External_link opposing it because its unencyclopedic and essentially spam for the POV art project there. The best source of diffs is at en:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Umpteee. Editors mentioned there have indicated on the article's talk page that they're not interested in following consensus.--Chaser 09:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Spam only on en.wp. Please make your request on en.wp local blacklist. Thanks--Nick1915 - all you want 09:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- We have one? How have I been an admin for ten months and not known? Thanks.--Chaser 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- It only came in a few months ago and didn't have much significant activity before August/September. Find it at en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 17:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you add the link yourself to the local blacklist as an admin, please make sure you leave an explanation on the talk page so that there's a record in case a removal request comes in in the future; if the link's on the blacklist without explanation, then it's likely to be removed someday. Note that edit summaries are not indexed by Mediawiki search or Google, so it's a royal pain to go through edit summaries and diffs 2 years later to find out who added what and why. (That's been the experience on meta with many early blacklist entries made before a proper log was started.) --A. B. (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I added a note about local blacklists to the top of this page. I don't know of others, but I'm sure you folks do.--Chaser 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you add the link yourself to the local blacklist as an admin, please make sure you leave an explanation on the talk page so that there's a record in case a removal request comes in in the future; if the link's on the blacklist without explanation, then it's likely to be removed someday. Note that edit summaries are not indexed by Mediawiki search or Google, so it's a royal pain to go through edit summaries and diffs 2 years later to find out who added what and why. (That's been the experience on meta with many early blacklist entries made before a proper log was started.) --A. B. (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
6 URL redirect domains
Six unrelated URL redirect domains similar to tinyurl.com:
- zonow.com
- kurl.nl
- urlsie.com
- lix.in
- href.to
- kuerzer.de
Details:
zonow.com
kurl.nl
urlsie.com
lix.in
href.to
kuerzer.de
--A. B. (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Done--Nick1915 - all you want 14:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
raghunathmanet.com and mecatiss.info
Very different domains, but linked by registration details and spammer behavior.
Examples of spamming:
- Italian Wikipedia 82.124.33.160 (all contributions)
- German Wikipedia 82.124.165.43 (all contributions)
- French Wikipedia: [10] and [11] by 82.120.202.220. 82.124.33.160 (all contributions). I don't know why, but on fr: the IPs sometimes revert their own additions.
- Polish Wikipedia [12]
- Japanese Wikipedia [13]
- English Wikipedia (all contributions); 90.2.53.163 (all contributions); 82.124.33.160 (all contributions); 82.124.165.166 (all contributions)
-- SiobhanHansa 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Done--Nick1915 - all you want 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also found mecatiss.com (related to mecatiss.info) and spammed cross-wiki:[14], [15]. Any chance of adding this too? Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 01:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
added--Nick1915 - all you want 09:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
smartlabs.pl
This link has been inserted across a number of Wikipedias. Here is part of the report from en:WT:WPSPAM:
smartlabs.pl
- Spammer
en:Special:Contributions/83.15.80.234
This editor repeatedly inserts a link to his own calculator program across a range of articles, and never responds to Talk... EdJohnston 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cross-wiki spam -- I suggest you list at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist, --A. B. (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Another IP:
- meta:195.117.19.227 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • block log • x-wiki • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
- Another IP:
- Cross-wiki spam:
- de:Spezial:Beiträge/83.15.80.234
- pl:Specjalna:Wkład/83.15.80.234
- pl:Dyskusja wikipedysty:83.15.80.234 -spam warning on pl.wikipedia
- pl:Specjalna:Wkład/195.117.19.227
- --A. B. (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cross-wiki spam:
Done Nick1915 - all you want 09:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
hiphop-radio.50webs.com
I thought this was already blacklisted, but apparently not. See COIBot report:
hiphop-radio.50webs.com
- users in range 193.34.84.0/22, e.g. Cross-wiki spammer 193.34.87.64 (see User:COIBot/UserReports/193.34.87.64). --Beetstra 09:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
--Beetstra 09:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Done Nick1915 - all you want 09:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Spam from domisfera.com | contratar.org | visitarcanarias.com | original-design.es
Several anonymous user are sowing this external link in Wikipedia ES. Revert and continue. For example: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
and
[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]
History of Contribs: From IP 80.24.213.111 From IP 83.60.51.119 From IP 85.57.164.53
Blocks domains, please. --Pepelopex 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (user page in es.wikipedia)
Spam only on es.wp. Please make a request on your local blacklist. Thanks--Nick1915 - all you want 15:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sory, What page? --Pepelopex 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nick, I wasn't aware eswiki had a local blacklist, do you have info on where it's located? If it's es:MediaWiki:Spam blacklist then it's not working. drini [es:] [commons:] 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, that's where it would be requested, but es:MediaWiki:Spam blacklist is not working, i.e., doesnt' prevent links from being inserted, look: addition of a test url 16:48 30 sep 2007, but addition of that url to a page 16:54 30 sep 2007 drini [es:] [commons:] 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- @Drini, uhm ok... I've blacklisted this domain, but please contact a dev for fixing es local blacklist--Nick1915 - all you want 16:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- *shrug* I couldve adde d it myself, I was more interested on knowing about local blacklist, but yes, it seems it's not enabled, I'll talk to devs. drini [es:] [commons:] 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The user Pepelopex is acting in bad faith. There has been some links added to these articles that are NOT SPAM because add relevant and neutral information. He has not read the content of these articles because he is not interested in the subject I think. Of course you can not read them because are in spanish. But you have bloqued them. ¿Can you explain how this can be possible?
I understand spanish and they're all blog's spam links. Sorry, removing refused--Nick1915 - all you want 08:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Tu que entiendes castellano,¿te has dignado a entrar a uno sólo de los articulos DIVULGATIVOS referenciados de Domisfera? y los calificas de spam?. Conoces esta politica de la wikipedia referente a enlaces externos? (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Convenciones_sobre_enlaces_externos) "...Páginas con gran cantidad de material neutral y relevante aún no contenido en el artículo. Lo ideal sería que dicho contenido se integrase en el artículo de Wikipedia, en cuyo caso seguiría apareciendo como enlace externo, al tratarse de una referencia bibliográfica...."
Gracias a este tipo de decisiones irreflexivas y arbitrarias la wikipedia es lo que es...
2 es.wp admin have tagged these links as spam, it's enough for me. Please ask them the reason--Nick1915 - all you want 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Spam from beatbox.be
IPs spamming: 84.194.183.151/152. Edits:
Mathel 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here are edit histories:
- de:Special:Contributions/84.194.183.151
- en:Special:Contributions/84.194.137.192
- en:Special:Contributions/84.194.182.152
- en:Special:Contributions/84.194.182.9
- en:Special:Contributions/BeatboxBe
- es:Special:Contributions/84.194.183.151
- fr:Special:Contributions/84.194.137.192
- fr:Discussion Utilisateur:84.194.183.151: This was the spammer's only warning on any project that I could find. It was ignored
- fr:Special:Contributions/84.194.183.151
- it:Special:Contributions/84.194.183.151
- nl:Special:Contributions/84.194.183.151
- pl:Special:Contributions/84.194.182.152
- pl:Special:Contributions/84.194.183.151
- pt:Special:Contributions/84.194.183.151
- sv:Special:Contributions/84.194.183.151
- Here are edit histories:
- Spam domain info:
- Spam domain info:
beatbox.be
- Related domain:
- Related domain:
beatoxic.com
eclipse-glasses.com
Extensive and persistent cross-wiki spam. See en:WT:WPSPAM#spam.eclipse-glasses.com for the list of dynamic ip spammers. 124.178.140.134 09:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Done --Herby talk thyme 10:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Still spamming, using eclipse-glasses.net: [30]/[31].
Spammers were fr:Special:Contributions/SODAP-SOBOMEX and meta:81.51.229.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • block log • x-wiki • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google). 121.221.75.186 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Done --Herby talk thyme 07:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
handster.com pocketpcaddict.com
Widespread cross-wiki spam. See en:WT:WPSPAM#spam.handster.com spam.pocketpcaddict.com for list of (shared ip?) spammers. 121.221.75.186 10:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Proposed removals
|
|
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements. |
turkishweekly.net turkudostlari.net bturkish.at
I came here initially for the t issue above, which is solved now (it was blocking arama.hurriyet.com.tr). So, I should admit that I am not going to use these sites now. I hope that does not affect their removals.
- turkishweekly.net (usakgundem.com as well): a news journal (I don't know why it was ever blacklisted). It was first blacklisted by Dbl2010 (I think without a discussion), then he removed it when someone objected [32], and then he 'redid it with more detail' [33], which was blacklisting the Turkish version of the site. Weird. These were done after the discussions about blacklisting the Turkish chat sites. I agree they should be blacklisted but their existence does not imply blacklisting news journal websites. I think this should be removed from the blacklist
- turkudostlari.net: This website hosts among others a quite big and good archive of lyrics of "türkü"s (Turkish folk songs) with additional info about them (their origins, their 'tales', sourced). They also host non-copyrighted mp3's of some songs of contemporary musicians. The website was blacklisted on February 1st, b/c some guy added link to Edirne folk songs to Edirne on multiple wikis simultaneously.[34] I think it is time to remove the website from the blacklist. We can use it on many Turkish folk music related articles.
- bturkish.at: Apparently, this website does not exist [35]. There might be a spelling error.
Denizz 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- On the subject of "bturkish" this is actually part of the regex used so the site blacklisted is turkish.at --Herby talk thyme 07:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, this has taken quite a while (probably my mistake). Thanks for bturkish though, I should have noticed /b's there. On the issue of turkishweekly, I started to think that Dbl2010 banned it for some issues on Turkish Wikipedia (Vikipedi). I guess I should contact him, and ask for blacklisting it on Turkish wikipedia, not here. Turkudostlari should be removed from the blacklist. It is like banning Wikipedia for some vandals. Among other things it has biographies of at least 295 Turkish/Azeri folk musicians including Ali Ekber Çiçek, Arif Sağ, Aşık Veysel, Birol Topaloğlu, Bülbül Memedov, Çekiç Ali, Dadaloğlu, Daimi, Edip Akbayram, Emre Saltık, Ercişli Emrah, Erdal Erzincan, Erkan Oğur, Erol Parlak, Ferhat Tunç, Feyzullah Çınar, Gevheri, Grup Kızılırmak (let me stop here), ... many of which have articles on en wiki (possibly also other wikis), therwise they should be notable enough to have articles on en wiki. I am not familiar with the notability guidelines on other wikis. Denizz 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- It probably would be as well to contact Dbl2010. However a simple answer is to seek whitelisting of the site on en wp? --Herby talk thyme 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I already did contact Dbl2010 (User_talk:Dbl2010#Spam_blacklist), but I haven't got any response yet. Anyway, turkudostlari is not related to this. Can we unblock that one? I personally don't like the idea of keeping it blacklisted everywhere and whitelisting on en wiki. I would appreciate it very much if it is removed from the blacklist here. Also I attempted to use the website just now. Do you know how to quickly find in the talk page history how a website got blacklisted? I wanted to add something from ezine, but it is not that important, I am just wondering. Denizz 04:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It probably would be as well to contact Dbl2010. However a simple answer is to seek whitelisting of the site on en wp? --Herby talk thyme 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why you have an issue with an overall blacklisting and a local whitelisting? As to ezine the decision was taken here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
nefac.net
A previous request that this site be removed from the list was declined on the basis that the site had been involved in "quite an amount of cross wiki spamming". This is not the case - it was involved in one incident of inappropriate cross-wiki posting. This site is a significant and reputable anarchist resource, and has not been involved in any systematic spamming problems. It should be removed from the blacklist. 68.124.71.180 20:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment for now - if someone places links on 7 wikis I'd probably take the view it was spamming & it seems "systematic" in my view. I'll happily look at others comments, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- NEFAC should be taken off the blacklist. It is a reputable organization with a wealth of good information. I don't understand the accusation of "cross-wiki spamming". From what I can tell, [decision to blacklist NEFAC] was made with very little discussion and I think it needs to be revisited. It looks like the links were legit resources on the pages it was placed. There's nothing "spammy" about linking to a useful resource on several wikis. I'm contacting User:Eagle_101, the meta-admin who did the banning for a revisit of this decision. Aelffin 05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Um. I'd say that the valid encyclopaedic uses for an anarchist communist agit-prop site are strictly limited, and can easily be handled by local whitelisting of individual pages if need be. Where do you think this site should be linked? JzG 07:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- NEFAC should be taken off the blacklist. It is a reputable organization with a wealth of good information. I don't understand the accusation of "cross-wiki spamming". From what I can tell, [decision to blacklist NEFAC] was made with very little discussion and I think it needs to be revisited. It looks like the links were legit resources on the pages it was placed. There's nothing "spammy" about linking to a useful resource on several wikis. I'm contacting User:Eagle_101, the meta-admin who did the banning for a revisit of this decision. Aelffin 05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
books-by-isbn.com
Please cease blacklisting "books-by-isbn\.com", or give me some solid support for why not. I frequently use the site for my efforts within the English Wikipedia, and would like to include a link on a reference resources page for services I find at no other site. For example, unlike the permitted site "http://isbndb.com", this site lists the publishers for each region code, so I can see all the 15 known sources for Egypt, say, ISBNs starting with "978-977-".
I have reviewed everything I can find about why this site is blacklisted, and find almost nothing — certainly nothing compelling. I used the spamArchiveSearch tool and located this as the original blacklist request; but the documentation given in the request is useless and looks nothing like spam (for example, en). I see that in April of this year Rich Farmbrough asked for delisting, and was denied for curious reasons. For those unfamiliar with his work on the English Wikipedia, Rich is the single most active editor (bot assisted), and has been heavily involved with cleaning up ISBNs, so his opinion that this is a valuable site should carry extra weight.
The site openly lists Tomas Schild and his contact information, not something I would expect of a low-life scum-sucking spammer. In any event, I see no evidence that he has been asked and chose to ignore a polite request if someone felt inappropriate links were being added to the wikis.
Therefore, I ask that this domain be removed from the Meta blacklist. —KSmrq 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The archive search tool misses some stuff (the archiving procedure has changed since it was written). I did a Google search and came up with the following:
- en:User talk:Naconkantari/archive10#Please consider removing three ISBN-related links from spam blacklist (needed by WP ISBN-fixers)
- Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03/Additions: Done#isbn-check.com + books-by-isbn.com + isbn-check.de
- Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03/Removals: Not Done#isbn-check.com + books-by-isbn.com + isbn-check.de
- Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04#isbn-check.com + books-by-isbn.com + isbn-check.de
- en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2007Mar#Spam blacklist
- This may end up being a domain that's either removed here and locally blacklisted on some projects or else kept here but locally whitelisted on some. (I'm not an admin so it's not my call). There are some negative aspects beyond the Wikimedia world for the domain-owner if he's blacklisted here since this blacklist is also used by Wikia and many of the other non-Wikimedia wikis that run on MediaWiki software. Those don't apply if he's only locally blacklisted.
- The archive search tool misses some stuff (the archiving procedure has changed since it was written). I did a Google search and came up with the following:
- It also makes a big difference who added the links on it.wikipedia that led to this request -- was it the site-owner or someone else? --A. B. (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- What links at it.wikipedia?! I'd appreciate it if anyone can show me anything that deserves to be called spam. There was one complaint by an IP; and the subsequent blacklisting was immediately challenged. Other than the original complaint, which now seems to have no corroboration, requests to remove this from the blacklist have been declined for no valid reason. If no one can show cause why a useful site should be on the list then it should be removed. This is especially true since the site operator has assisted Wikipedia, as documented here. —KSmrq 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, this even affects my talk archive pages! The domains seemed to be added (or at least retained) on the basis that they were "commercial" - which has never been a factor. I have seen no evidence of spamming this domain now or ever, and it was certainly useful to us in the past. 172.203.211.163
The various websites were spammed in the 'Special:Booksources' pages in many wikis (cross-wiki spam). The websites get money every time someone finds a book there and click on links pointing to Amazon (referral profiteering). IMHO the websites can be delisted only if the Wikimedia Foundation allow the referral profiteering on Wikipedia. --Madetests 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The links appeared in multiple Wikipedias, but were they spammed? If so, can you provide some evidence (diffs for instance)? That would help our discussion here. I was unaware there was a spam problem other than that originally alleged by the IP that made the request (and who has apparently not edited since). I know that links from one Wikipedia's article will often be importeds, ometimes uncritically, into another's article on the same topic. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll search edits tomorrow. For now I've found a website n°4 owned by Tomas Schild www.buecher-nach-isbn.info (same strategy as the others). That's present at es:Wikipedia:Fuentes_de_libros#Libros_en_alem.C3.A1n. I've found also the tools IsbnCheckAndFormat and IssnCheck created by de:Benutzer:°: it seems working very well [36], [37], so we don't need others check tools, expecially those affiliated with Amazon. But, please, feel free to ask that german user what he thinks about Tomas Schild's websites: if he thinks that those websites are useful we can whitelist. --Madetests 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- ufff, some of the spam edits: en, de. They are very old edits, and I've found that those links were added on it.wiki and fr.wiki by regular users instead of IPs (they were probably translating the special page from en.wiki). --Madetests 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- D'oh! [38], again an IP starting with 212. I'm going to sleep now. :D --Madetests 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the research. It helps me make my point even more firmly. The English-language diff is from 2003, and is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate addition, especially at a time when few people had heard of Wikipedia. The only mark against it is the false argument that if a site uses Amazon.com referrals it is not allowed; the fact is that such referrals are allowed and are used by sites that are not blacklisted. While it is true that other sites exist to check an ISBN for validity (my usual being http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp), the blacklisted site provides information not otherwise available, as I said in my original post. For example, it provides lists of publishers within a country code, and as your own data shows it can suggest valid ISBNs given an invalid one.
- Owners of Web sites are allowed to make money, and not just from referrals. It is allowed and appropriate to link to sites whose sole purpose is commerce. Examples are abundant across Wikipedia, including Amazon.com itself, Apple Inc., Harrods, and a list of champagne producers. Hosting a site costs money, so most freely hosted sites are required to carry advertising banners; that does not get them blacklisted. A site providing ISBN (book number) services consumes hosting bandwidth for which it is charged, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect the site operator to link to Amazon.com, with or without income. Look for a book at http://ISBNdb.com (which is not blacklisted); note the links to various booksellers, including a "Buy" link to Amazon.com. Given that the Wikimedia Foundation itself would not exist if Jimbo Wales had not earned money, Wikipedia is not so hypocritical as to shun commerce.
- So far no evidence indicates spamming or anything else prohibited. Even if some other site provides one or two of the services that this site does, that is no excuse to blacklist this one, especially not for shared practices! And I have pointed out services of this site that are not available at any other site mentioned. The original blacklist request, from an IP, was a mistake. It has now been one week since I first posted here, and no just cause for blacklisting has been offered. Therefore, it is time to remove "books-by-isbn\.com" from the MediaWiki blacklist. --KSmrq 05:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
interesting; the links were added not only on the Special:Booksources pages, but also in the ISBN articles: en, de (both by IPs). @KSmrq: you can add your opinion here: Spam_blacklist_policy_discussion#Referring_links. --Madetests 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I look at the two edits you mention (made in 2003) and I see the behavior of someone more familiar with ISBNs than most, someone who is trying to help improve the articles by making a number of informative changes. It would be a gross distortion to continue to refer to benign edits as spam. And when I look at the policy discussion I see unequivocal support for my position that referral links are common and are allowed. I say again, this blacklisting was a mistake and should be reversed. My request was made 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC); it is now 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC), more than a week later. No evidence justifies the accusation of spamming; all the evidence supports my request.
- Or is this a list that is easy to get on and impossible to get off? Will no one admit a mistake? I claim that "books-by-isbn\.com" is a uniquely helpful site and has never been promoted here by spam. Far from abusing Wikipedia, the site operator created a user identity and assisted on request. I do not know the operator, and have no connection to the site; I ask for removal because, like others, I find it obstructive and ludicrous that the site is blacklisted. Today would be a good day to fix this mistake. Please remove this site from the list. --KSmrq 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you clarify, is this site actually gaining referal profit? Can we confirm whether it is or is not? JzG 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I cannot confirm or deny referral profit; as I said, I have no connection with the site, except as a satisfied user. Nor is it relevant. We have no rule prohibiting it.
- It seems to me that if a site is to be blacklisted because of referral profit, then documentation should be provided that the site is doing that; the burden is on the blacklister. Likewise, if such blacklisting is supported by a rule, that rule should be documented; again the burden is on the blacklister. Or can anyone (in this case, an IP!) get a site blacklisted using imaginary rules and allegations?
- Why all the stalling? All the evidence in this thread, from my initial research through to today, overwhelmingly points to removal. Folks, spamming is not subtle, almost by definition. I repeat the first sentence of my initial post: Please cease blacklisting "books-by-isbn\.com", or give me some solid support for why not. Neither has happened. --KSmrq 07:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you clarify, is this site actually gaining referal profit? Can we confirm whether it is or is not? JzG 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Links to commercial sites are not necessarily inappropriate. There are hundreds of links across many different Wikipedias to advertising-driven sites such as Le Monde, Der Spiegel and MacLean's. The en.wikipedia guideline, en:WP:EL, gives some useful material on judging the suitability of links; while it applies to en.wikipedia only, it probably captures prevailing values and opinions common to all ourprojects. --A. B. (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I join KSmrq in asking that books-by-isbn.com be removed from the Spam blacklist. A project to correct all the invalid ISBNs in Wikipedia finished its work earlier this year. (see links at the bottom of [39] for documentation of that project). One of the tools I used in that endeavor was Tomas Schild's web service at isbn-check.de. At present I have that link in my monobook.js file, and due to the spam blacklisting, I can't add anything to my own monobook without first removing that link! Since I frequently check ISBNs, I 'compromise' by never updating my monobook. EdJohnston 1 October 2007
Done - I see a number of issues here in terms of philosophical debate but no evidence of spamming such as is seen in most cases. Removed --Herby talk thyme 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
republica.com
As far as i can tell, this site really is just about the band Republica. I was trying to edit the wikipedia article on their singer when i encountered the block. Thanks! 24.6.87.63 07:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- This may have been added to the blacklist in error instead of republika.pl. See the archived request. -- SiobhanHansa 12:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment Siobhan - I'm heading that way too but have not had time to check up thoroughly on it. There is also a blacklisting for some subpages that is outside my regex competence (\brepublica\.com[^.]*(\/.*)?$) which suggests there was something about the site. Equally - in the end - does it have a 'pedia value I guess? --Herby talk thyme 12:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Done taking the view that republica.pl was the intended site to blacklist --Herby talk thyme 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
www.julebyen.com
Official page from Lillehammer Tourist Board, Norway Why is our official christmas page www.julebyen.com moved to the Spam blacklist ? Julebyen.com is produced from the Lillehammer Tourist Board. Our second official page is www.lillehammerturist.no. Please remove www.julebyen.com from the spam list ! Regards Lillehammer Tourist Office, Norway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.191.101.6 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 Sep 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find a reason just yet but I've asked the admin who listed it for their comments - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- See Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/08#julebyen.com and give your comment first, thanks. --Aphaia 10:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence in the archive is of extensive link placement over 17 wikipedias. This would be more than justification for the blacklisting I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 11:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
pwinsider.com
Not sure why this one is on the list, but it's a useful and very reliable news-site for articles on professional wrestling. 24.13.35.75 23:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- A pound says it has something to do with Jonathan Barber, purveyor of vanispamcruftisement to the wrestling fan community. What? No takers? JzG 18:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well what do you know. See this previous request: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Removals:_Not_Done JzG 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
caiuszip.com and sciarthistory.com
- caiuszip.com
- sciarthistory.com
We would like to ask for a removal of the url caiuszip.com from the spam blacklist section. www.caiuszip.com www,sciarthistory.com offer information about Math. Furthermore, it is multidisciplinary in that it combines various fields of knowledge, such as:history of the world, art, philosophy and science.The main idea behind the "CAIUS ZIP is to show the history made by great men and how mathematics and other subjects were important in their decisions.The aim is to amuse,educate and incite the curiosity of the students. We don't really understand why we were added to the spam blacklist in the first place . We are not familiar with the notability guidelines on other wikis We just want to contribute with wiki and show a website Educational and useful resources.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.53.33.253 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 Sep 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe look at this - Cross wiki spam, see en:WT:WPSPAM#caiuszip.com and sciarthistory.com. Also here - the intentions may well be good but some people's behaviour in adding links has not been --Herby talk thyme 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
www.teneriferesorts.com
I would like to ask for the removal of the following URL www.teneriferesorts.com from the spam blacklist. I am the new website administrator and would like to apologise for my colleague who was previously in this position for adding our link excessively to Wikipedia.
Tenerife Resorts has recently been redesigned with a wiki like style. We are now offering viewers the opportunity to post their own comments and in the near future hope to allow them to edit the pages in a similar way to Wikipedia. The content of this website is purely an information guide to Tenerife, we are therefore concerned that we have been added to a blacklist consisting largely of adult based websites.
Should you disagree to allowing us to add our link to the "Tenerife" page we understand, but do ask that our link is removed from the Spamlist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.149.216.208 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 Sep 2007 (UTC)
- I'll let others air views on the site however I would point out that blacklisting is not about adult site but the persistent placement of links across wikis. --Herby talk thyme 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- No credible reason has been advanced why we would want links to this site. JzG 21:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying and again apologise for the previous administrators abuse of the wiki system. We do appreciate that you are unwilling to allow us to post our link on Wikipedia and therefore, only ask that our URL is removed from the blacklist as we are concerned how this may affect our reputation as a wiki style website offering information on Tenerife. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.149.216.208 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 20 Sep 2007 (UTC)
- The blacklist is not Google indexed. JzG 22:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the blacklist is indexed by Google:
- However, the format of the entry is "teneriferesorts\.com", not "teneriferesorts.com" --A. B. (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Google Adsense# 2046301473629603
- --A. B. (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Heh! I thought it looked familiar. A lot of water under the bridge since then. Anyway, I hadn't realised the blacklist is indexed on other sites (should have, of course). It should not be indexed here, but no matter. It doesn't look like there's much of a reason for removing it, and I strongly suspect that other Wikia sites will be spammed if we do, given past behaviour, but I'll leave it to someone else to call. JzG 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The above links are relating to a completely different website, a sister company to teneriferesorts. I don't think it's fair to judge one administrators vandalism as the norm. We link to and from many official sites and i have some good content to add to the pages relating to the canary islands. I would appreciate a chance to prove that the administration is now acting responsibly. I look forward to hearing your comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.149.216.208 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 4 Oct 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the links above certainly relate to the domain you are requesting removal of. Equally your statement that they relate to a completely different website, a sister company seems a little contradictory. Personally I see no need for links to your website on Foundation projects, if there were a relevance somewhere it could be dealt with by local whitelisting --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
www.invisionfree.com/Morpaga_RPG
I do not know why this link is on the blacklist. Given that the site is completely spam-free, I see no reason why this would be on the list. Also, the link has not been given excessively; in fact, it has only been given once. I apologize that I cannot give a link to the article yet: the search engine has not been updated.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.1.219.193 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2007
- invisionfree.com is not blacklisted here; it was, however, blacklisted locally on the English Wikipedia.[40] I suggest you raise this issue at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.--A. B. (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
InvisionFree Forums
Why are InvisionFree forums blocked? They're completely reliable and are NOT spam. Note: I mean a url along the lines of "s14.invisionfree.com". --4.225.8.132 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- invisionfree.com is not blacklisted here; it was, however, blacklisted locally on the English Wikipedia.[41] I suggest you raise this issue at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Worldwidealbums.tk
This website was blacklisted, however, it gets its info from MEDIATRAFFIC.DE (official website of the United World Chart), and its minimal sales total (they get it by simply adding all the sales weeks of the albums from the MediaTraffic website, e.g., next week, they will add another 50k or so to Timberlake's album). It would be useful because, although Mediatraffic shows you the worldwide sales, they only show you "this week's" sales, so they don't show the TOTAL numbers. Especially useful for recently released albums, to show in the artist's discographies. They give the exact same numbers as mediatraffic, but they add them up for us. --- 72.142.234.18 23:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why hasn't anyone replied to my post yet? --- 72.142.234.18 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- See here for info on the blacklisting --Herby talk thyme 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
aceshowbiz.com
The site, aceshowbiz.com, is currently blacklisted, but has information I have referenced that I cannot find elsewhere. The site does not appear to be a source of spam, so it should be removed from the blacklist. The specific URLs that I am siting in en:Jonas Brothers are aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography.html and aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography_2.html. --Scottalter 09:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Listed based on spamming last year according to this archive. Local whitelisting on en wp might be possible just for the pages you require --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
idigbig.com
Radio Station WBIG-FM in Washington, DC uses idigbig.com as their website. I have tried to add it to the respective page, but due to the spam protection blacklist, I can't. According to what I have been told the the blacklisting admin got the regex wrong (the blacklisted site should be \bdigbig\.com). If idigbig.com could be added to the whitelist (and the correct URL added to the blacklist) I would appericate it. - Neutralhomer 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- The official website appears to be www.wbig.com and is on the en wp page so why is the site you are trying to add relevant? --Herby talk thyme 08:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Troubleshooting and problems
|
|
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above). |
Help
I am trying to revert this change, but I keep getting this Spam error... What's going on? There's no URL even in the content! 195.171.82.195 09:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, figured it. It's not at all clear on the description that it applies to the whole page! 195.171.82.195 09:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
WTF?
While creating a article for the 2003 computer game Apocalyptica, I put a link to the official forums, and it said it was spam, how is this, I believe it may be so because the official website says that the forums are hosted using Invisionfree. When I removed the official link, it worked. WTF HAPPENED HERE?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xgmx (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2007
- invisionfree.com is not blacklisted here; it was, however, blacklisted locally on the English Wikipedia.[42] I suggest you raise this issue at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.--A. B. (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Unsigned Comments
How do you get a wiki to automatically add The preceding unsigned comment was added by xxxxx? I love that feature and this is the first time I've seen it. Is there an extension that does it? --71.184.105.187 06:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Problem with spam filter at Wikipedia:Talk: Green building
When I tried to revert the blanking of text at Talk: Greenbuilding on the English Wikipedia, the spam filter prevented me from doing so "because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink." Here's the page I got when I tried to undo the blanking. Would you be able to fix that, please? Sunray 07:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's ok now. --Jorunn 13:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Problem with spam filter at ro:Wismar
No Protection please ro:User:Parvus7
- The blacklisted link has been removed, the article can be edited. --Jorunn 13:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Why this page is blocked?
The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (www.cais-soas.com) seems to be blocked. Is this on purpose? --201.228.196.130 15:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- This IP is blacklisted by spamhaus.org as an infected PC or open proxy. --A. B. (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- IP blocked --Herby talk thyme 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- This IP is blacklisted by spamhaus.org as an infected PC or open proxy. --A. B. (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't save
This page can't be saved because of a spam link, but it's not clear which link is the offending one. Can anyone help? --Epukinsk 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- The page included 2 invisionfree.com links which I have disabled. --A. B. (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Blacklist doesn't work
My blacklist doesn't work for some reason. After putting the black list I made another account and with that I edited a page with some nasty words and links but the blacklist doesn't block it. What do I do??? --CrazyGamester 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Bit more info would help - what wiki, what blacklist, what url? --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
Local blacklisting vs. global blacklisting?
Now that there is a local blacklisting capability, the question arises as to when to blacklist locally and when to blacklist here.
My personal opinion is that Meta should remain the primary venue for blacklisting. It's hard to predict who's going to spam more than one Wikipedia. While we now have a tool to find a given spam domain on the 57 largest Wikipedias, it remains problematic to find it on the 200 smaller Wikipedias or the other 450 to 500 Wikimedia projects (Wikiquote, Wikisource, etc.) There's value to all these other projects in listing stuff here.
I think the local blacklist option is good when one project wants a domain blacklisted and another project wants to use it. This happens occasionally when a given spammer makes himself intolerable on one project while the link is being used appropriately on other projects.
What do others think about this? --A. B. (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, I agree with you. I don't have a big problem with local blacklisting on a particular project as a way to immediately interrupt a spammer in progress, but standard procedure should probably be to follow that action up with a request for meta blacklisting.--Isotope23 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- As a crosswiki admin if I see spam pages created or bunches of links placed I immediately add them to local blacklists that I can access. It's quicker and easier than coming here (where I have not always been helpfully received) and there is at least one or two sites that I've blacklisted that have apparently valid links on en wp for example - just my 0.02 --Herby talk thyme 07:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- See Spam blacklist/About and use the block with the smallest possible range. Now local blacklists are available it's not worth the work of blocking here and potentially causing side-effects in hundreds of wikis until there is an established pattern of cross-wiki spamming. Perhaps automatic rejection until at least five wikis have been spammed. And not automatic acceptance after five, just eligibility. Jamesday 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting idea - how would you know a site was blocked by five wikis say? They do not tend to be well used (local blacklists) - I'm about the only one who adds to the 4 I have access to. The principle is fine - the practice? --Herby talk thyme 10:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Metric criteria are nice I think. I don't think however we need to say "blocked from five or more wikis". I think that it is just okay "five or more wikis were spammed". Currently, my personal criteria is very low though - spamming to two or more wikis regardless languages (both sets of i. enwiki and enwiktionary and ii. enwiki and dewiki are enough for me, I mean). --Aphaia 10:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am with AB on this: we should use meta as both the main blocking list and also a forum where people go to see if someone has been causing a wider problem. Otherwise it becomes impossibly complicated to block from here and the argument "it this a nasty spammer who xyz" becomes "who abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". --AndrewCates 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Metric criteria are nice I think. I don't think however we need to say "blocked from five or more wikis". I think that it is just okay "five or more wikis were spammed". Currently, my personal criteria is very low though - spamming to two or more wikis regardless languages (both sets of i. enwiki and enwiktionary and ii. enwiki and dewiki are enough for me, I mean). --Aphaia 10:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting idea - how would you know a site was blocked by five wikis say? They do not tend to be well used (local blacklists) - I'm about the only one who adds to the 4 I have access to. The principle is fine - the practice? --Herby talk thyme 10:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- reset
In the past I've not been well received on this page so have tended to avoid it and operate local blacklists where I have the rights. However I am increasingly interested in this as at least a clearing house for queries influenced in part by A.B. I have posted to a couple of Foundation mailing lists & I'm hoping to hear other views. I'm happy to review/discuss possible spam issues here whenever I'm around - cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- If we don't blacklist by default here, then there should be a list or some mechanism (perhaps a bot) that tracks all the entries on the local lists so that other projects can check their links against what's been spammed elsewhere.
- Ideally, the bot (or human volunteers) would also run periodic checks using a faster, expanded version of http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/linksearch to see if locally blacklisted links are showing up on any of the 700+ Wikimedia projects. (I say "faster, expanded" since that tool checks up to the 57 largest Wikipedias and may take several minutes when checking 57).
- Also, it's hard to rule out cross-wiki spam when our best tool just checks 57 of our 700 projects.
- --A. B. (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- PS, Call me lazy, but maybe it's just easier to just blacklist by default here as opposed to setting up a new coordination system.--A. B. (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- When I was involved into the maintenance of this list, some years ago, I got such complaints by email periodically. It takes a time to reply them courtly but firmly. I think this kind of complaints are better to deal by the local people at first. Also I'm afraid this list affects too much websites. So I don't support "anything on meta and at first" tactics. And as for maintenance, this page is huge and editing is a pain. Single-website affecting spams are better to go to their local list, I think. --Aphaia 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Aphaia, right now, it seems like this list is running pretty smoothly without much admin effort. As for its maintenance, that doesn't seem to be much of a problem now. As for e-mails, I'm not an admin, but because I make so many requests here, I get them too. I just refer them back to this talk page, suggesting that they make their case here before a wider audience; I also make sure at least they get answer from me here if not from others. The admins that work on this list seem to have thick skins, are undeterred by complaints and are always willing to do the work. As for this list affecting many websites, you're right and that argument cuts both ways. This list also protects many web sites from known spammers.
- When I was involved into the maintenance of this list, some years ago, I got such complaints by email periodically. It takes a time to reply them courtly but firmly. I think this kind of complaints are better to deal by the local people at first. Also I'm afraid this list affects too much websites. So I don't support "anything on meta and at first" tactics. And as for maintenance, this page is huge and editing is a pain. Single-website affecting spams are better to go to their local list, I think. --Aphaia 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- PS, Call me lazy, but maybe it's just easier to just blacklist by default here as opposed to setting up a new coordination system.--A. B. (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- In any event, what's the mechanism we're using for coordinating to ensure that spammers locally blacklisted in one place aren't spamming in another? Who's doing this work now? We must have a system in place to track this before we deprecate this list to use for proven cross-wiki spam only.
- A useful parallel is the whole open proxy issue. For several years, different projects have battled open proxies separately resulting in a large duplication of effort. An open proxy blocked on fr.wikipedia (perhaps our best OP-fighters) would then be used by other spammers, vandals or POV-pushers to cause problems on nl.wikipedia or ja.wikibooks. Only now is there some convergence on a meta-level solution. Meanwhile, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction with spam. Meta has a critical role to play here, whether it's blacklisting globally or just tracking globally to catch cross-wiki spam. Either way, we must not abdicate our role and our responsibility (especially to the smaller wikis which have proven so vulnerable to spam). --A. B. (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's another time to blacklist at meta: links to blatant copyright violations. For example, when the domains associated with this discussion all finally get identified, they should probably be blacklisted here even if we only find it on one project. That's because these sites are all blatant violations of different magazines' copyrights; we can't afford to have links to these sites if we can help it. (See the discussion of "contributory infringement" at en:Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works and en:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). --A. B. (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agree completely - I do think we need to hammer out some approach to Meta blacklisting policy probably by extended/clarifying this. For anyone new arriving here (Meta sysop or another project user) this page is frankly unhelpful. My time is under considerable pressure at present but I do see this as a high priority and any help will be appreciated.
- We would be able to clarify cross wiki spamming as a concept, the fact that some site should probably be blocked at a Meta level anyway such as above or sites that may compromise machines etc. We can also make blocking url shorteners a policy for example --Herby talk thyme 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Besides of all ... I eventually found this page: Spam blacklist policy discussion. Since this discussion is lengthy and it becomes clearer we need to have a global policy of inclusion for maintaining this page, are we better to move the discussion place? Or better to stay here? --Aphaia 22:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm for here, because if it's spam to one wiki odds are it's spam to most of them. Say, you have a marketing company that uses aggressive JavaScript, if each user on en.wiki who has been there complains, odds are it'll still be aggressive to fr.wiki. Yamakiri 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok - I agree with Yamakiri's point generally. If they spam one wiki they probably aren't useful to another one (& if they are whitelisting is an option).
- However (& thanks Aphaia - I must have found that page in the past because I'd got it on my watchlist) we have Spam blacklist policy discussion & Spam blacklist/About and yet still no real clarity about policy or help for those who are not used to these pages be they admins or other users. My postings to both Foundation-l and the list for Meta met with nothing much so I guess it is up to us to hammer out guidelines policy etc. Until early October my time will be limited but I'll do what I can. I think it may well be worth a fresh start rather than trying to make changes to what we already have? --Herby talk thyme 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
spamlink template
en:User:Shadow1 and I are working on the linkwatchers. At the moment we are running them on 722 wikis (which is 'all' by the count of about one and a half week ago). User:COIBot is watching these 722 wikis, and reports when a link is on its monitorlist (and those links are generally there when it is spammed, see the explanation on en:User:COIBot). On the english wikipedia we use a spamlink template for reporting external links, which directly links to a number of search engines, and to a number of reporting systems, including COIBot. Would the template be of interest here? --Beetstra 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- A link to the template would be useful? Getting reporting a little more consistent on here would make our lives a little easier too - it is not always clear what the extent of the problem is (nor sometimes the exact site name). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I created a version of that template here a few months ago: Template:Spamlink. It may need to be updated with the latest, greatest features - but it is here. --Versageek 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have updated the template to a more meta-like form. When you use '* {{spamlink|example.com}}' it displays the next line:
example.com
In order:
- First what is in the template,
- Linksearch for meta and the 5 big wikis (en, de, fr, en.wiktionary, fr.wiktionary, see Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size),
- 'LinkReport' is a report generated by an IRC bot by Betacommand, it is a save of a current linksearch on en.wikipedia.
- 'COIBot Linkreport' contains a summary of all use (by not-whitelisted users) on all 722 wikiprojects on Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size, since the moment of blacklisting/monitoring (see en:User:COIBot for more info).
- Eagle's spam report search searches for reports on en.wikipedia spam archives, and here as well I think.
- interwiki link search: 20 and 57 search in resp. the 20 and 57 biggest wikis.
- LinkWatcher search searches in en:User:Shadow1's database (only en at the moment, probably at some time also for more/all wikipedia).
- Wikipedia search searches for the existence of the page with the url name on en, de and fr.
- google search searches for info on the site on google.
- Veinors pages contain also link-addition information
- domaintools gives info on the domain
- AboutUs.org gives info on the domain
- Yahoo backlinks, search engine results.
I guess it contains pretty much all the tools needed to investigate the link, latest additions and current use. Hope this helps. --Beetstra 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good - we'll see how it goes as it gets used. Given the nature of it I'll probably semi protect it I think - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is protected (or did you just do that?). --Beetstra 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, to keep yourself more or less up to date, you can watchlist User:COIBot/LinkReports, that gets updated when COIBot saves a report (about every 5 minutes). It may get you one step ahead of a spammer (though take care interpreting the report, COIBot sometimes picks up links by mistake). --Beetstra 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Protection - yes (when I am around I am not generally slow!). As to watching (& for me) the honest answer at present is "no time" - I would consider myself pretty active on three wikis at least so I tend not be short of work. When I get time I will check it out and see what I can do - thanks for your work & regards --Herby talk thyme 13:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Question
Could somebody please explain me why is the official site of punk band The Plasmatics, blocked?, and if it is wrong, how to and unblock it. I tried to add the link on spanish wikipeda article, but it wont let me.--83.165.236.54 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
which URL?--Nick1915 - all you want 08:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)