Talk:Spam blacklist: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:57, 6 November 2007

The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist. There is also a more aggressive way to block spamming through direct use of $wgSpamRegex. Only developers can make changes to $wgSpamRegex, and its use is to be avoided whenever possible.

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.

Projects

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

[edit]

snippet for logging: {{/request|738003#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

Latest comment: 16 years ago61 comments18 people in discussion

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.

gportal.hu/gindex.php?prt=268564

(More Szilva96 spam)
Cross wiki spam.

IP spamming: 81.183.179.8

Sample edits:

--Jorunn 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

mysexychat.com

First, I'm using a proxy for security reasons here. I work on de.wikinews and we had some very annoying spam attacks recently from someone who's using proxies. We wouldn't like to exclude proxy users (as far as I know) and we don't want to sacrifice our freedom for security (as in blocking pages for new or not logged in users etc). Since it wouldn't be difficult to add the above address and could prevent spam, I hereby ask you to do it. See Difflinks below BR, de.wikinews.org User:Conspiration

Spam:

[1]
[2]

Here the discussion where it was suggested to add the page here:

[3]

--217.238.221.228 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since it appears to be a de news only problem at present it should be on your own blacklist which I see it is (though be careful with the regex which could be improved). Therefore the problem is controlled for you. As a sideline I understand that editing from open proxies is against Foundation policy (NOP) If there is evidence of cross wiki spamming of that domain do let us know - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

agrigento.ag

Cross-wiki spam. The name of the account that added the link to the Italian Wikipedia is identical to the Registrant Name for agrigento.ag.

Sample edits:

Spammers:

--Jorunn 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jorunn, good catch - cross wiki & Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

gelalive.com

Cross wiki spam.

Sample edits:

Spammers:

--Jorunn 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 10:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Related domains:

gaysicilia.eu
agrigento.ag

gaysicilia.eu

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

agrigento.ag

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

previously blacklisted

Google Adsense ID: 6386656057471057

Common ownership with the agrigento domain blacklisted separately on this page.

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.google.com.tr/search?hl=tr&q=changing+transpotation

Cross wiki spam. [4]

Platonides 18:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 19:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

logisticsclub.com

Different domain names for the same site:

lojistikkulubu.org
lojistikkulubu.com

Sample spamming:

on en: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
on tr: [15], [16]

-- SiobhanHansa 21:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also:

wikt:en:Special:Contributions/213.238.140.117
logisticsclub.org (related domain)

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

All Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Universe Daily (Wayne Smith) active again at en:

this is his latest, which he's been spamming using multiple sockpuppets. If you are not familiar with him, he's a serial vandal, anti-semite, hate monger, and general net cockroach we've been swatting for a couple years. Here's the page about him. Thanks for your help, Antandrus 03:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is the specific link by Wayne Smith that need blocking -

myspace.com/terriirwin

Yale s 04:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI, just deleted this section^[17], then blanked page. The IP that did this is close to those used in the past by Universe Daily. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Max seems to have picked that up in exactly the same way I would have! Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

bellefem.com

This user keeps spamming:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.45.240.18 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 Oct 2007 (UTC)

Unless this is cross wiki you should probably list this on your own wiki's blacklist? You should find it here but you will need an admin to add anything. Do say if we can help or you find it to be cross wiki --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

more gportal.hu spam

Three more pages + wikipedia.try.hu (?)

Add also from

81.183.162.207 [18]
81.183.186.140 [19]
81.183.179.8 ([20])
81.182.126.4 ([21]])

-Badseed 12:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if this whole domain serves any purpose for the Foundation? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the whole domain should be blacklisted; there is another spambot, [22]. --MF-Warburg(de) 16:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are a number of gportal.hu links, especially in hu.wikipedia:

http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch?uselang=en&useskin=monobook&limit=250&target=%2A.gportal.hu

--Jorunn 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Imo if it's important in hu.wiki they could whitelist it, because on most wikis it's spam. Mathel 22:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and because at the moment IP 81.183.179.205 is vandalizing many wikis with gportal.hu spam. gportal.hu should be blacklisted and could be whitelisted on hu.wikipedia if they need it. --MF-Warburg(de) 15:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

84.1.181.198 ([23])

If it can be blacklisted everywhere except .hu if they use it there then do it, this is malicious behavior and we can't run around constantly chasing the guy - Badseed 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

For el.wikipedia You could consider adding the url to el:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for local blacklisting, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let's see if that will work. Thanx :) - Badseed 02:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done by Majorly --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

another Wayne Smith Universe Daily Linkspam

This is the current link that Smith is spamming -

friends.myspaceDOTcom/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewfriends&friendID=107538150

I think the key text to block is "friendID=107538150"

Yale s 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.bombingscience.com

Found on 18 wikis (+removed from pl by me).

www.bombingscience.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Spammer 65.94.178.22 - 17 contributions only in external links sections.
Sample edits:

Mathel 14:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep, cross wiki & Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

gportal.hu/gindex.php

gportal.hu/gindex.php?
Spambot 81.183.162.17 -
Sample edit:

dv

- I'm only showing 1 since since this is a spambot whose IP range changes quite sporadically and for this IP, all its additions have been to Jimmy Wales article page adding the above mentioned url to the external links section. This sort of vandalism has been happening for about a week now--Comet styles 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
  - Output from my anti-spam-bot: [24]. Diffs and users who spammed. Mathel 14:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done by Majorly --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

italien-gastgeber.com

italien-gastgeber.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Cross wiki spam. Was added to ca 50 Wikipedias today by IP 91.23.246.211.

Sample edits:

--Jorunn 09:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

how to add www.viagranada.be to the spamlist and searching for this hidden text first?

www.viagranada.be

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

very persistently people have been adding the commercial url www.viagranada.be on nl.wikipedia, coming back time and again with new sockpuppets. i'd like to add this url to the spam blacklist, and also check it's usage on the wiki, but how to search for hidden text such as in [http://www.viagranada.be Nederlandstalige site met info over Granada], can anyone assist please? thanks + grtz, oscar 11:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

some examples of the spamming accounts [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29]. oscar 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

To search in nlwiki only, use nl:special:linksearch. To search in multiple wikis, use this tool (you find it above as "interwiki link search"). /NH 11:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

thx! apparently nl.wikipedia has no longer this unwanted url at this moment. remains the request to add it to the spam blacklist please? oscar 12:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since it appears to be a nlwiki problem only, blacklisting locally would suffice. On the other hand, nl:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist seems not to be in use, and the site does not appear to be of any use to Wikimedia wikis, therefore it could probably be globally blacklisted just as well. I think others will soon sort it out for you. /NH 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with NH. Use your local blacklist and, if it doesn't run, contact a dev for fixing problem. Thanks--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

hmm look here nl:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist it's there now. who is responsible to implement this functionally, does it work (semi)automated? oscar 16:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tried to add the link in nl:Wikipedia:Zandbak, and the filter seems to work. /NH 17:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

yes it does! thank you for your help :-) oscar 02:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.travexpert.net/jerusalem/

Found on 55 wikis.

www.travexpert.net

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Spammer: 87.126.210.67 - 20 contributions in Jerusalem article on various wikis. Of course adding external link.

85.187.155.189 - 40 contributions, most in Jerusalem article, but also Yogurt:).

Sample edits:

en
pl
af

Mathel 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest blacklisting travexpert.net, because travexpert.net/istanbul has been spammed too.

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=84.21.219.5&lang=

Samlpe edits:

IP's that spammed the link travexpert.net has also spammed topsiter.net and paris-prisoner.com links. Those sites are owned by the same person who owns travexpert.net

topsiter.net

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Sample edits:

paris-prisoner.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Sample edits:

--Jorunn 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done --Nick1915 -^{all you want} 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

ilwebmaster.net, noemy.net

Crosswiki spam to PageRank articles: [30], [31]

Edits look like this: [32]

--Tgr 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done --Nick1915 -^{all you want} 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

bayern-gastgeber.de

bayern-gastgeber.de

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Cross wiki spam. Was added to ca 50 Wikipedias today. It is related to italien-gastgeber.com that was blacklisted a few days ago, same owner and the spamming IPs are both from t-dialin.net.

IP spamming: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=91.23.247.226&lang=

Sample edits:

--Jorunn 21:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Nick1915 -^{all you want} 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

theflowersofromance.tk + dcc.ttu.ee/Bands/get.asp?ident=2555 + myspace.com/tfor + myspace.com/vennaskond

Cross wiki spam. Please blacklist:

theflowersofromance.tk
dcc.ttu.ee/Bands/get.asp?ident=2555
myspace.com/tfor
myspace.com/vennaskond

IPs spamming:

Sample edits:

theflowersofromance.tk

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

(the template isn't working properly because there is a question mark in the URL dcc.ttu.ee/Bands/get.asp?ident=2555)

{{{1}}}

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

myspace.com/tfor

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

myspace.com/vennaskond

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

--Jorunn 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 00:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

expo2010kina.hu

Cross wiki spam. This is related to Talk:Spam_blacklist#shanghai2010.hu and Talk:Spam_blacklist#expo2010china.hu.

expo2010kina.hu

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Spammer: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Kewingo&lang=

Sample edits:

--Jorunn 09:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jorunn - Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

budapestpocketguide.com

Cross wiki spam.

budapestpocketguide.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Spamming IPs:

Samlpe edits:

--Jorunn 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

beginner-sql-tutorial.com

I've already blacklisted this on en.wiki. This site has a malicious script issue with Internet Explorer. It appears that it isn't necessarily the fault of the site itself per se, but that it got hacked or corrupted at some point. Recommend blacklisting this on all wiki's until it is confirmed that the scripting has been resolved.--Isotope23 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done & many thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 16 years ago59 comments24 people in discussion

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

The following discussion is closed.

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 [33], and then he 'redid it with more detail' [34], 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.[35] I think it is time to remove the website from the blacklist. We can use it on many Turkish folk music related articles.

Because of this black-listing I can't add (actually restore) a link to the article fr:Türkü in the french Wikipedia, which is a pity since this site is one of the few serious sites on the subject. JX Bardant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.97.240.25 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 Oct 2007 (UTC)

Local whitelisting is always an option (on fr wp) although this is not closed yet. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

bturkish.at: Apparently, this website does not exist [36]. There might be a spelling error.

Denizz 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Nothing more heard for a month so closed as

Declined --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Encyclopedia Dramatica

This blacklist is for systematic spam attacks, not for unpleasant & undesirable sites. Have there been any systematic spam attacks from the ED crowd recently? If not, I'm going to remove the entry.--Eloquence 13:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

In practice I think you may be wrong. This list serves to block any "undesirable" site from placing links to Foundation projects. While the site is listed here there cannot be any spam attacks can there. I would certainly suggest you would be well advised to seek consensus and not merely remove the entry. Checking the original request (here) there certainly was substantial evidence of spamming. A rushed removal would be unwise IMO, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it was added to the blacklist after the enwiki ArbCom ruled that links to Encyclopedia Dramatica were outlawed. I think it is better to move this entry to the enwiki spamlist, as the enwiki ArbCom does not decide what links are banned on other wikis. Melsaran 16:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Does ED pass the EL policy on any project? They are certainly not a reliable source and ED is certainly not a notable website. I can only see this resulting in more hassle. J.smith 17:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The English Wikipedia has, compared to other Wikipedias, very high standards for inclusion. There are several reliable sources that have reported on ED, but since it fails the guidelines of the English Wikipedia they deleted the article there. That does not mean that smaller Wikipedias with lower standards for inclusion couldn't have an article on them (I could name dozens of less notable websites that have an article on the Dutch Wikipedia). Anyway, that's not really relevant here, since the spam blacklist should only be used against persistent spammers, and (as far as I know) there haven't been any problems with ED on projects other than en.wikipedia. Melsaran

There was also some harassment/libel issues involved as well. I really think it would be more appropriate to whitelist the main page on the various wikis that deem the site is notable instead of opening the can of worms that is the ED issue. The ED page strives on drama... and that makes the site a source of trolling. If a "crack in the armor" is opened up, I can see it being exploited and I see very little gain for us in opening up said crack. J.smith 18:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I recall, not only were there serious and persistent harassment issues (en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO), there was also a persistent and unmanageable problem of links being added to mainspace by ED fans. If it is decided that ED is notable enough for an article about it on some other language Wikipedia, then a local whitelist of the home page will be sufficient to allow a link fomr that article, but ED itself was being linked widely and indiscriminately, and that, added to its problematic content, was enough to be a serious problem. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Where, apart from an article on ED itself, could ED be used as a source or reference? I would say nowhere. As a site it is completely without any redeeming merit whatsoever, having gone with the complete opposite of Uncyclopedia's "how to be funny and not just stupid" - ED, then, is stupid and just not funny. Stupid, and obscene, and occasionally outright vicious. Its usefulness in building an encyclopaedia is precisely zero. [former User JzG] 12:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's called vandalism, revert it like always, unless they were using bots it's not a problem. The English Wikipedia is not the only project, and it can maintain its own blacklists, instead of forcing other sites to create whitelists to deal with an English Wikipedia issue. And who cares about any relation to the less popular Uncyclopedia, it has no relevance to a discussion of a link ban. Clothblues 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

French, Spanish and Portugalese Wikipedia have articles about Encyclopedia Dramatica. If some from en.wiki hate it, it is better to put it to local blacklist, but not to block it for all Wikipedias. --Dezidor 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Other attack sites have been blacklisted here; this does not appear to be an en.wikipedia-only issue. Here are several examples:

traditio.ru
- Spam blacklist/Log#May 2007
- ru.wikipedia
becemaml.com:
- Spam blacklist/Log#June 2007
- ca and es.wikipedia
geocities.com\censura_no
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spam_blacklist&diff=657009&oldid=656794
- es.wikipedia

Wasn't there also an it.wikipedia attacksite blacklisted here?

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Erik, I'm concerned that you've argued to remove Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Daniel Brandt's sites, which have attacked, stalked, and libelled numerous Wikipedians, but you added, and have never argued to remove, Sollog's site, which attacks Jimbo and his family. Can you explain what you see as the difference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dramatica is only a humor site. MONGO as far as I have seen in that case was not stalked. Ze has provided no evidence of stalking. Stalking is following one around from place to place, usually with an obsession. Cyberstalking is the same only one is followed from site to site. The only "harassment" I see is the Wikipedia article on MONGO. The whole Request for Arbitration/MONGO is MONGO harassing some people who run a site. The information there is only supposed to be funny. MONGO's personal information was not in the article, and ze was only being parodied. Apparently, from what I have read on this "case", it was only MONGO who0 couldn't take a joke rather than stalking. If MONGO really got stalked, then ce3nsoring the stalkers won't help. Dramatica have the right to free speech. Many productive contributors on Wikipedia are/were also on Dramatica, for example, the former users Badlydrawnjeff and Blu Aardvark, and Schmuckythecat(spell?). This is no excuse to violate someone's freedom because "you don't like that site". Yea, there are some things that are not exactly boo-baa-baa-black-sheep friendly, but that just means it is "not for everybody". That is not for us to judge. See w:WP:NOT#CENSORED.

Brandt should have respect here, since ze is banned and has no chance to defend himself, it is quite rude to dismiss his sites as "spam". Brandt does not attack anyone. Yes, I believe it is unethical of zir to reveal the personal information of admins, but he didn't do anything that wrong. You know, ze has rights too. Actually, what has Brandt really done wrong? He is only a critic of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is only censoring criticism of itself. So, Wikipedia is therefore infallible because no one is critical of them because the criticism can't be linked to, therefore if it says something bad about Wikipedia, it is lies. Is that really what you want? Anonymous1 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I think MONGO made the whole thing up to smear against people on Dramatica. He then used WP:RFAR/MONGO as a battleground to attack people on both wikis (Dramatica and 'Pedia). It could have been an attention stunt to generate drama (no pun intended). I don't want to be too controversial, but I think if he was stalked and harassed, he deserved it and he hasn't got justice yet. Anonymous TALK 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Eloquence on this one. By the way, Melsaran was the one using sockpuppets to vote in AFD's. Anonymous TALK 17:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The site was blacklisted because it was being spammed, not just because it contained attacks. The views of self-evident trolling sockpuppets on how MONGO "made the whole thing up" are not a particularly productive or welcome form of input. 193.113.235.168 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know of no history of spamming from Encylcopeda Dramatica. It is obvious that the English Wikipedia has concerns about allowing the site to be linked--for reasons other than spam, but I don't see such concerns from any other wiki. My suggestion would be to remove it from the meta blacklist, as it doesn't meet the criteria for blacklisting (in particular, it's not been used in spam on any Wikimedia wiki). The English Wikipedia can then blacklist it locally if they want. AmiDaniel 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You know of none, but spammed it was. Many links were removed from many projects. For what content are we intended to use ED as a source? JzG 11:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

What about the sites blacklisted due to attacks on editors working on other Wikipedias (ru, it, es, ca, etc. -- see list above)? Should they also be removed? If so, should there be a discussion here first? I think it's important that if we change the way we've treated such sites in the past, then we should probably be consistent about it across projects. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would think that the right way forward is to rename this to link blacklist and leave them on. Spamming is one of the way harassment can be perpetuated. It would also fix the problem of sites feeling that their reputation is sullied by being on a spam blacklist. JzG 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gamedogs.org

The following discussion is closed.

This site was blacklisted by an editor who I think has his/her own conflict of interest and also whom I think has power issues. This site was originally listed a couple of years ago and then was removed by an animal rights activist. I think 'ohnoitsjamie' has mentioned his own opinion that dogs are meant as pets and doesn't see value in this site offering an alternative to humane society portrayals and it rebuts such peta-like ideas. he used the site owner's ignorance of wiki-usage to bait an uncivil exchange and then banned this very useful site. It contains many positive portrayals of pit bulls and also is a gateway resource for a large amount of other resources for pit bull owners and those interested in learning more about them, from a pit bull-positive perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.137.71.173 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 Oct 2007 (UTC)

The link to the discussion is here. The on wiki discussion is certainly uncivil. To state that the link would continue to be added using proxies was unwise I think in terms of your case to seek removal. I'm sure others will have a say & I'll go read around --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you can see from the discussion, there was no "baiting." I'm not sure what the appealer is trying to suggest about my biases; the current article about Pit Bull contains plenty of content from both sides of the debate. The link in question is not a high-value resource, and my submission of it to the blacklist was based on the editors threats to circumvent Wikipedia policies on external links. Ohnoitsjamie 19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I glad this has come up since it reminds me to take care of some unfinished business.

Background on this and related domains:

Related domains were being spammed as recently as this month -- I was busy at the time and never had the chance to get them blacklisted on en.wikipedia. I'll take care of that now.

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd forgotten all about those other domains but then I saw the gamesdog post here and it rang a bell. Here's the en.wikipedia request for the other domains:

en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Zemg Network spam (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Declined given the evidence --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

TVRage.com

According to your guidelines on the content page, only links that are "widespread, unmanageable" should be added to the blacklist. The TVRage link spam really wasn't that widespread, or unmanageable. It was all on the English wikipedia, and it was only a couple users adding it. Most of the time, they weren't added for "Links mainly intended to promote a website" - WP:EL but to provide "neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as movie or television credits) or other reasons." - WP:EL.

Most links were added in Good faith, but the blacklisting really wasn't in good faith. Obviously, the people who did persistently added the "spam" links, have stopped, and won't continue. But I don't think the site as a whole should be blacklisted. If TVRage links are added, but do not enchance the article, than remove them. Usually, the links contained "meaningful, relevant content" other wise not available. Obviously, with the crackdown on individual episode articles (notability issues), you can't really give details about every single episode in the guide (even on List of Episode articles). Thank you. -Linalu24 05:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some background:

Discussions on meta:

Discussions on en.wikipedia:
- en:Template:Tvrage
- en:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination)
- en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination)
- en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2006/11#TvRage.com
- en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVrage.com
- en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/02#TvRage (Status: Declined)
- en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Wikia spam
  - This is a relevant, if numbingly long, discussion about what kinds of links, in general, are desirable in TV-related articles

Discussions on TVrage.com
- www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=5&fid=6635
- www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=382
- www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=476
- www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=477

Fan-spam by tvrage.com partisans or a systematic campaign by the site-owner? Extent of spamming? Cross-wiki? I wish we had more documentation in the original blacklisting request; it would have been helpful in assessing later whitelisting requests.

Comments:

Listing here penalizes the site beyond Wikimedia sites. The site has momentum and it's links may be desirable to non-Wikimedia wikis
Removing from this blacklist may open en.wikipedia to spam
I suggest removal here coordinated with simultaneous addition to the local en.wikipedia blacklist; blacklisting there has no impact beyond the English Wikipedia.
At that point, a discussion can begin on en.wikipedia about whether these links should be removed from the local list and under what circumstances, if any, tvrage links meet the requirements of Wikipedia's External Links Guideline.
If removed from the local en.wikipedia blacklist, any tvrage.com link additions should be monitored very closely

--A. B. ^(talk) 13:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy about this suggestion. If it is an en wp issue then it probably shouldn't be listed here. Can you suggest an en wp admin to liaise with on this A. B.? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pages that link to Benjamin Thurman Hacker

The following discussion is closed.

The following link is listed but is not a dead link. I hope this is the proper place to request that this entry be removed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dead_external_links/301/b

- Benjamin Thurman Hacker, Web Tribute 301 Moved Permanently
- The actual link is: http://www.hackerweb.net/bthacker which is an active and proper link.

I attempted to edit the dead link page listed above but it would not allow me to remove this reference. Would someone please remove this URL from the blacklist?? 70.5.174.84 16:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC) my login ID is strbenjrReply

As you can place the link here it is not blacklisted here. You need to ask on the en wp (w:Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist), thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

AdvisorsDirectory.com

The following discussion is closed.

Can you please remove any/all articals including spam/blacklist on AdvisorsDirectory.com the "spamming" was done a long time ago unintentionally. We just thought we where doing some good marketing and appologize for the misunderstanding. We will never comment on your site again with a link so as not to take a chance of having this happen again.

Thank YOU, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.103.240.86 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 Oct 2007 (UTC)

Ok - your version of a long time ago is quite the same as mine as it was in May of this year that the sites were blacklisted.

It is very rare that a website will be removed at the request of someone associated with the website and, equally, if you are will never comment again then whether the sites are listed here or not seems irrelevant. While I am sure you have no intention of placing links again others may choose to do so and the site does not seem essential to an encyclopedia.

The original request is here. Others may wish to comment, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.

This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.

Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding intentionality:

The Milehighharris account and related IP account records indicate at least 7 spam warnings^{[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]} plus a block^[44] after which more spam was still added.^[45]

Also, it appears we missed a couple of related domains when we blacklisted the others:

advisorsdirectory.net
advisorsdirectory.org

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info A. B., I've added those two --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Declined --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

mapsofworld.com

mapsofworld.com is being used as a referances @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games, while trying to remove other spam that was added the blacklist filter prevents editing citing http://www.mapsofworld.com as the reason. --Sirex98 11:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not on the list here but on en wp so for removal please go here, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Sirex98 11:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

xoomer.alice.it

Blocking this entire domain is way too indiscriminate, there are many good pages there. On the dutch Wikipedia alone two are requested for whitelisting. I think blacklisting should be done on he basis of single xoomer.alice.it/blablabla/ instances. It seems to me this is already the case for some, but there also seems to be an global/indiscriminate xoomer.alice.it still active. Thanks in advance for changing this. 82.75.108.125 21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think this might be correct - the blocking of the whole domain might be excessive, I'll look at whether we can narrow it, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've narrowed it now so your problem should be solved, come back here if not, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Works for me - thanks Herby! 82.75.108.125 02:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

cais-soas.com

Hello, I was just wondering why cais-soas.com, the "Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies", was added to the spam blacklist. If it was a mistake can it possibly be removed? The website is a scholarly organization with very good reference articles on the Near East and Central Asia. I can't imagine it was involved in any kind of spamming. 67.174.240.91 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was blacklisted based on this for your information, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. I did not know that. I seemed to have confused the site with Encyclopedia Iranica[46], from which cais-soas.com seems to have stolen much of its material. 67.174.240.91 10:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

We might as well mark this

Declined under the circumstances. J.smith 20:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

z11.invisionfree.com

Invision provides free forums. It seems *all* their free forums are blacklisted. It would be better if only those forums that are being spam-linked were to be blacklisted, rather than all of them.

I was trying to restore the link to the "Different Worlds" discussion forum in the article Alternate history. The link vanished on 23rd September 2007, would that be because of the Invision forums being placed on the spam blacklist? The forum has 108 members with 13 members and 2 guests active in the last 25 minutes. 82.3.79.252 01:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

invisionfree.com is not blacklisted here; it's blacklisted locally on the English Wikipedia. Please make your request on en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 01:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I didn't know that; the Spam Protection Filter page that came up when I tried to add the link directed me here. 82.3.79.252 02:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

gportal.hu

Popular Hungarian webhost/sitebuilder with hideously ugly URLs. It was erroneously blocked when a few sites it hosted were spammed. Widely used on huwiki, please remove, and block specific URLs only. --Tgr 20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Given the fact that there have been so many requests for blacklisting pages from this site I'm inclined to think that blacklisting the whole domain for the Project may be correct. However there should be no problem in whitelisting it for hu wiki then? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

But if you take a look at this site You will see, that there are a lot of links also in other Wikipedias where it is also not spam, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 09:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough - happy to see other input here - do we have to keep blacklisting page by page? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Every time a specific URL has been blacklisted another gportal.hu link has been spammed a few days later, if not sooner. This has been going on for more than two months, in many Wikipedias and a variety of articles (Wikipedia, Encyclopedia, Wiki, Jimmy Wales, Nox are some of the favorites, but yesteday for instance Homosexuality laws of the world, Turkmen language and Afrikaans articles got a generous helping of links to a gportal.hu site).

But like Spacebirdy says, there are still other gportal.hu links around that needs to be taken care of, so that they don't stop new edits from beeing saved:

+ maybe some in the ca 190 smaller Wikipedias or in the 500+ other Wikimedia wikis.

--Jorunn 09:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion

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).

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)Reply

The page included 2 invisionfree.com links which I have disabled. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Bit more info would help - what wiki, what blacklist, what url? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Large spam post breaks $wgSpamRegex

I use a local $wgSpamRegex to block spam. Recently a spammer posted a large spam (190KB) without any newlines (paragraphs) and they were able to post blocked terms. This may have ramifications for other spam filters. I deleted the spam page so it may not be accessible.

deleted "Talk:Time Offhttp:/www.n2nwk.com/find.cgi?call=CU7AZhttp:/translate.newsbin.com/index.php/Main Pagehttp:/dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Talk:JFFShttp:/wiki.d-addicts.com/Punch"
more details: http://katrinahelp.info/wiki/index.php/Spam_Patrol

--jwalling 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Problem adding internal links

I am trying to add internal links Amelia Joffe and Reese Marshall to the Sonny Corinthos article. It keeps coming up as blacklisted hyperlink. Can someone tell me why and what to do? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.2.110 (talk) - 20:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Adding internal links shouldn't trigger the blacklist. What project is this happening on? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it was en:Sonny Corinthos, it is fixed now. When a page contains a link to a blacklisted site (in this case ipetitions.com), it cannot be saved unless the link is removed. The spamfilter text actually tries to tell you this, but could perhaps be made a little more clear. /NH 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Problem with http://carcel.carabanchel.net

I'm trying to save http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A1rcel_de_Carabanchel but there is an error telling http://carcel.carabanchel.net and I cant find what's the filter rule that is blocking it... --87.220.20.208 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is locally listed: es:Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. To save a new version of the page, simply remove the link. /NH 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments9 people in 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

My 2 cents. I'm sysop at 7 wikis. I would always use local blacklist (for instance, a spanish page isn't likely to be spammed on russian wiki), but if I see crosswiki spam as I JUST spot for [47], I'd come and global block. Local lists exist for a reason, and it's easier to keep track of. Global list should be used only when global blocking is needed. drini ^[es:]_[commons:] 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Beyond the 57 Wikipedias searched by Eagle 101's cross-wiki search tool, this blacklist is also relied on by 650+ other Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wiktionaries, other Wikipedias, etc.). So for Spanish projects, there are these additional targets for Spanish-only spammers for which we don't have much visibility unless someone manually runs a linksearch domain-by-domain, project-by-project:

That or if we're lucky and Luxo's x-wiki user search tool finds the spammer using the same IP or user name on other projects. (That tool is sometimes off-line; at other times it misses contributions on some wikis).

I think another, less important factor to consider is how non-Wikimedia sites might use a domain. All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. A site selling an obviously bogus get-rich-quick scheme or magnetic underpants as a cancer cure has no value to any of our projects nor to any of the 1000s of other wikis our blacklist affects. You might as well do everyone a favor and globally blacklist such a site even if it appears on just one Wikimedia project. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Picking up Drini's point, local blacklisting is great. However it is dependent on admins locally being

Aware of it
Understanding regex adequately
Being interested in the prevention of (inappropriate) external links

If any of those criteria are absent then so is local blacklisting effectively.

Equally on A. B.'s point, there are some sites that just aren't needed by the Foundation (or most other folk) such as the batch of adult sites I just added. In such a case it matters not whether they spammed one or many wikis they should be listed here not locally I think.

We do need a sharpening of policy (referred to above) which - when excess time is available! - I certainly aim to take a look at. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Coibot's monitor list is quite efficient at spotting crosswiki spam, however it requires that someone actually look at the reports and notice it (as I did with uarticles.blogspot.com, which was recently meta-blacklisted). It has a 'stalk page' feature which picks up domains added to watched pages using the spamlink template.. I imagine it could stalk the local mediawiki blacklist pages as well. I'm a bit reluctant to give it more tasks at this point as it and it's related linkwatchers are resource intensive, consuming about 2/3rds of the resources on a 4proc/4gig Sun Ultra80. --Versageek 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

spamlink template

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I have updated the template to a more meta-like form. When you use '* {{spamlink|example.com}}' it displays the next line:

example.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

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)Reply

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)Reply

I think it is protected (or did you just do that?). --Beetstra 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I would ask the approval for making some changes in style,orthograph and not very significant changes in the content , in the article Tel Aviv in the Romanian Wikipedia .Sincerily , 217.132.66.104 02:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

@@ Line 422: / Line 422: @@
 === beginner-sql-tutorial.com ===
 I've already blacklisted this on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist en.wiki].  This site has a malicious script issue with Internet Explorer.  It appears that it isn't necessarily the fault of the site itself per se, but that it got hacked or corrupted at some point.  Recommend blacklisting this on all wiki's until it is confirmed that the scripting has been resolved.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
+:{{done}} & many thanks --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 15:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 == Proposed removals ==