Talk:Spam blacklist
- Proposed additions
- Please provide evidence of spamming on several wikis. Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist. Exceptions include malicious domains and URL redirector/shortener services. Please follow this format. Please check back after submitting your report, there could be questions regarding your request.
- Proposed removals
- Please check our list of requests which repeatedly get declined. 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 value in support of our projects. Please consider whether requesting whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use is more appropriate - that is very often the case.
- Other discussion
- Troubleshooting and problems - If there is an error in the blacklist (i.e. a regex error) which is causing problems, please raise the issue here.
- Discussion - Meta-discussion concerning the operation of the blacklist and related pages, and communication among the spam blacklist team.
- #wikimedia-external-linksconnect - Real-time IRC chat for co-ordination of activities related to maintenance of the blacklist.
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. This leaves a signature and timestamp so conversations are easier to follow.
Completed requests are marked as {{added}}/{{removed}} or {{declined}}, and are generally archived (search) quickly. Additions and removals 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
- {{sbl-log|2871231#{{subst:anchorencode:SectionNameHere}}}}
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 (example.com, not http://www.example.com). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived. |
Youtube links
User:Anna Shvets
See her global contributions. It's all about spam of herself. The links she adds are mainly this one and this one (sorry, but the templates seem not to work with the Youtube links).
Banned in the Russian Wikipedia. --David 18:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Blocked in the English Wikipedia for 24 hours due to violation of the three-revert rule (please see here).
She has also violated this rule in the German Wikipedia (please see discussion here). -- Ace111 21:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I asked coibot to create a user-report. Maybe that is giving more insight. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you need it? Just see her contributions in all the wikis, it's easy and quickly. She's doing nothing but promoting herself by spamming in the articles. --David 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a sad story. People are warning and telling this user she can't do what she wants to do, and reverting and blocking, but I don't see anyone welcoming her and helping her understand what is going on, and what she can and cannot do, with firm compassion, and she's taking it all very hard. I can't take this on myself, on en.wiki (I'm banned there), and I don't want to interfere, generally, in non-English wikis. It would be a shame to have her beautiful music blacklisted. A global lock might just encourage her to sock (and believe even more firmly in her tale of discrimination). A few words in the right place could avoid a lot of disruption and damage. I'll email her, that's not been blocked on en.wiki, and invite her to help out at wikiversity. --Abd 14:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
webdest.info
webdest.info
Nota informativa: He 
añadido el dominio webdest.info a la lista negra por ser un sitio de redirección a dominios bloqueados de los reportados aquí. El modo de operación es el de siempre: crear cuentas con nombres de usuario parecidos a robots para, de manera sutil, hacerse pasar por robot de interwikis y camuflar spam en el proyecto. Por ser un dominio de redirección de los ya bloqueados topholidaydestinations.net, attractdest.info y finddest.info; por el abuso cometido en múltiples proyectos y el modo en que lo efectúa éste nuevo dominio queda también bloqueado. -- Dferg ☎ talk 20:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is an ongoing problem. This spammer creates usersnames that look like bots. These "bots" add links. All links are owned by a Dusan Uzelac:
Registrant Name:Dusan Uzelac Registrant Organization: Registrant Street1:Nehruova 75 Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Beograd Registrant State/Province:Serbia Registrant Postal Code:11070 Registrant Country:RS Registrant Phone:+63.694125
See also the blacklisted sites:
travelsitesonline.net
topholidaydestinations.net
attractdest.info
finddest.info
EdBever 18:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- True indeed. See vandalism reports for this years' sockfarm. Above is the summary of why I've added that domain to the list (tho I don't know why I put it on "es"...) Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 20:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
ah, i had not seen
world-places.net
. EdBever 09:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
ovariancyst-treatment.com
ovariancyst-treatment.com
recently added in spam user-page content at http://ascend4.org/Special:RecentChanges (I will now remove that content) Jdpipe 03:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if blacklisting here is necessary, since you mentioned a non-wiki were it's spammed... Trijnstel 09:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Note that this blacklist is used by all Wikimedia projects and an undetermined number of external projects that has decided to use this blacklist as well. If the site is completly spammy, absolutelly not valuable for any project I'd say to add it however for local spam issues "MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist" is the proper place to go. -- Dferg 21:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Added. Site definitely is spammy. It only links to a book (dozens of times). I see no reason why this site would be valuable to any project. If you look at the blacklist there appear to be many sites linked to various kinds of cancer and other illnesses. --EdBever 07:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
carefreepoolsolutions.com
carefreepoolsolutions.com
recently added in spam user-page content at http://ascend4.org/Special:RecentChanges (I will now remove that content) Jdpipe 03:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if blacklisting here is necessary, since you mentioned a non-wiki were it's spammed... Trijnstel 09:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Declined. Site is a "regular" commercial site spammed on an external site that runs wikimedia. I see no real threat to any other wikimedia project at this time. COIbot will detect this link if added to wikipedia. --EdBever 07:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
studentloans.gb.net
studentloans.gb.net
recently added in spam user-page content at http://ascend4.org/Special:RecentChanges (I will now remove that content) Jdpipe 03:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if blacklisting here is necessary, since you mentioned a non-wiki were it's spammed... Trijnstel 09:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Declined. I am not sure about this one. COIbot will pick up on this one, so if it is added to wikipedia/media we can blacklist this one. --EdBever 07:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Bot spammers
pureberrymax.net
geniebrafacts.com
brafacts.net
luxury-pajamas.com
- Mostly deleted, but, several sockpuppets Courcelles 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --Courcelles 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Which are the users? - spambots qualify for global block if they're not already. Best, -- Dferg 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... excuse me but I don't really agree with you, Courcelles. Spam report says that these four links have just been added on enwiki, so according to the rules they should stay on the local blacklist. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be so bureaucratic :-) Blatant spam can be blacklisted here w/o problems, moreover if automated programs are being used for such malicious activities. Best regards, -- Marco Aurelio 10:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... excuse me but I don't really agree with you, Courcelles. Spam report says that these four links have just been added on enwiki, so according to the rules they should stay on the local blacklist. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which are the users? - spambots qualify for global block if they're not already. Best, -- Dferg 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
southpacific.org, mapsouthpacific.com, pacific-pictures.com and others
southpacific.org
User:70.66.93.57
--viniciusmc 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- That ip spammed links to tonga.southpacific.org Xwiki, thanks to Viniciusmc for reverting that. I would, however, advice against blacklisting - it seems the linkspamming haven't been repeated since the links were removed, and valid links to southpacific.org are included in many articles on different projects. Finn Rindahl 19:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
pacific-pictures.com
cuba-pictures.com
mapsouthpacific.com
gonanaimo.com
tonganholiday.com
samoaholiday.com
Fijiguide.com
- These websites are related. EdBever 09:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- From fijiguide.com: "About the Tonga Travel Guide: The Tonga Travel Guide at http://tonga.southpacific.org was developed from the Tonga chapter in Moon Handbooks South Pacific. After the handbook’s eighth edition in 2004, publisher and author decided that a ninth edition would not be economically viable. As sales of printed guidebooks decline, tourists are turning to the internet for free travel information. This new online Tonga Travel Guide and related Pacific island guides on SouthPacific.org is indicative of the switch from print to digital media."
- This does seem to be a spamming campaign for this website. EdBever 09:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- These websites are related. EdBever 09:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Added. It took me a long time to revert all the links. This is a spamming campaign to promote this cluster of links. The links and other information leads me to the conclusion that it is highly likely the owner of this domain was involved. --EdBever 14:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
hottestsports.com
hottestsports.com
totallympics.com
See Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_OlympicFan
- Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
laurbe.net
laurbe.net
User:186.16.6.48
--viniciusmc 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Declined. Link has been pushed by two ip's, but I'm inclined not to blacklist it unless it is spammed again. see also User:COIBot/XWiki/laurbe.net new linkadditions will be noted by COIBot. --Finn Rindahl 18:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
2vancouver.com
2vancouver.com
User:Louis82
--viniciusmc 00:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Also
2vancouverbc.com
User:leynavan
User:Ryan-can
User:64.180.47.24
I've requested reports from COIBot to help check this, at first look this does look like a likely candidate for BL. Thanks Viniciusmc. --Finn Rindahl 05:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --Finn Rindahl 07:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, this is (was) xwiki spam. EdBever 07:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
URL shorteners
9nl.com
comyonet.com
get-shorty.com
kindurl.com
lnks.it
phlpn.es
urlao.com
yourl.nu
Added. --Quentinv57 (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Proposed additions (Bot reported)
|
|
This section is for domains which have been added to multiple wikis as observed by a bot.
These are automated reports, please check the records and the link thoroughly, it may report good links! For some more info, see Spam blacklist/Help#COIBot_reports. Reports will automatically be archived by the bot when they get stale (less than 5 links reported, which have not been edited in the last 7 days, and where the last editor is COIBot).
|
COIBot
The LinkWatchers report domains meeting the following criteria:
- When a user mainly adds this link, and the link has not been used too much, and this user adds the link to more than 2 wikis
- When a user mainly adds links on one server, and links on the server have not been used too much, and this user adds the links to more than 2 wikis
- If ALL links are added by IPs, and the link is added to more than 1 wiki
- If a small range of IPs have a preference for this link (but it may also have been added by other users), and the link is added to more than 1 wiki.
COIBot's currently open XWiki reports
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 domain blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a domain from the blacklist is not a vote; please do not bold the first words in statements. |
encyclopediadramatica.com
encyclopediadramatica.com
http://gawker.com/#!5792738/what-happened-to-encyclopedia-dramatica – Encyclopedia Dramatica is gone, and it isn't coming back. encyclopediadramatica.com now redirects to ohinternet.com, which is Safe-for-Work. You may want to remove encyclopediadramatica.com from the blacklist and replace it with the following forks of the old NSFW ED:
- encyclopediadramatica.ch
- lurkmoarpedia.com
- encyclopediaerratica.com
--Michaeldsuarez 02:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- encyclopediadramatica.com should remain on the list as it is a redirect to an ?unrelated ohinternet.com. [1] Redirects aren't allowed anyways, nor would that alone be a valid reason for delisting, considering its sorted history. Probably need to Wait to see, if anything, becomes of that domain first, before removal. The others should certainly be added, I'll add them to the above request--Hu12 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- ed.ch is full of illegal content. See [2]. 198.82.18.218 16:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Declined. Apologies for the delay in closing this. --Finn Rindahl 05:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
vk.com
vk.com
Hello. Why does vk.com - the most popular social network in Russia and CIS countries blacklisted? Facebook send it then. Thanks in advance, for what you uncheck it their spam list. basik 13:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- This was blacklisted per request, by Dferg 21:39, 13 October 2009. --Abd 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- So what? It is a social network. Judging by the contributions of the participants, this lock was not justified, as they laid out this official site to site vkontakte.ru
- Just probably Vashj Mark Zuckerberg scared of social networks and ran into a Wikipedia block it.basik 05:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, edits like this say much (and such edits were done on many wikis, and on many non-related pages). Note as well, that the Russian Wikipedia has much of this blacklisted as well (see ru:Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist:
\bvkontakte\.ru\.*\/club \bvkontakte\.ru\.*\/groups\.php # альтернативные ссылки на клубы \bvk\.com\.*\/club # per above --Insider \b.*\.vk\.com \b.*\.vkontakte\.ru # что-то вроде vip ссылок на клубы \bvkontakte\.ua
- 2 of those rules made redundant by the global rule; vk.com was also blacklisted on en.wikipedia. I am afraid that either you will have to show why this is globally useful (note that this site is generally not useful for e.g. the English Wikipedia, it generally fails the reliability guideline, and generally fails the external links guideline there as well - just like e.g. facebook and myspace do). Otherwise, you could try to get specific links whitelisted on specific projects, which will stand a bigger chance of passing. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Such delusional smsl you. If you are going to spam the group of Facebook then facebook.com too, then disable? It is a social network. And it is even better than your Facebook only you have it is not popular. Russian site - vkontakte.ru (official), other languages - vk.com (too formal). So it is necessary to unlock. because spammers are spamming their groups should not suffer the usual people. And the fact that you have given an example, the similarity of site-invariant vk and vkontakte - it is simply fraudulent websites. That they should be blocked, but not vk.com 78.106.76.6 08:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, reverse logic is not going to hold .. I actually should have added to the '.. show why this is globally useful ...': 'and show that the spamming campaign by multiple IPs and editors has stopped'. Note also, that I did not decline the de-blacklisting, I just asked for more information (which now became more, sorry). Regards, --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support removal or more sophisticated filtering. Ru.wiki shows much more precise filtering for problem links (which may be old, I haven't checked). See: [w:Vkontakte], an article on the highly notable site, which has the URL in the infobox. This is a clearly legit usage, but, if I'm correct, it would be impossible to add that URL if it is removed. I'd check that, but it could cause disruption. It might be impossible to save some changes to the infobox. Because of the nature of this site, there will be substantial addition of links, and not all legitimate usages of links are for "reliable source," that is en.wiki bias, there are other purposes, and sometimes a normally not-reliable site can be reliable for some purposes. Whitelisting the site main page should be okay, for sure. Spam blacklist volunteers should be careful about making content judgments. --Abd 20:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Abd, this site was abused, I did not make any content judgments in this case. We could consider a more specific rule, though local whitelisting of an appropriate site also works (and is likely to pass on e.g. en.wikipedia). Abd, assume good faith, also on blacklist volunteers. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Saying they "should be careful," when content judgments are often asserted in blacklistings, is somehow not assuming good faith? "Fails the reliability guideline" is a content judgment, last I looked, and it assumes en.wp or wp standards, which do not apply to all the wikis, nor, in fact, do they apply to all pages and links on the 'pedias. I did not state that the site was not abused, but it's not easy for me to decipher the reports. My comment here is not intended, at all, to impugn the original blacklisting, I pass no judgment on it at all. And it should be irrelevant, "it was spammed" would refer to 2009, and the judgment of how much spamming is adequate to necessitate blacklisting is a complex one, not to mention a risk of spamming. If a site is widely popular, there could be lots of links, even lots of "abusive" ones, with blacklisting still being inappropriate. As to your conclusions, they would certainly improve things, notice that your ideas overlap with what I supported.
- But one thing: how could anyone "show that the spamming campaign by multiple IPs and editors" has stopped. Since 2009, this has been stopped by the blacklist. So it stopped, okay? Now what? Thanks. --Abd 01:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Abd, I think you misinterpret my questions about the general usefulness of the links wrongly ..
- The world is bigger than Wikipedia, and even on Wikipedia one can sometimes find the evidence. Seen the type of edits, these were likely people involved with the site (the MO is plainly advertising) .. sometimes they do react, especially on a 'home wiki' (ru, here). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Declined. Spammed globally, already locally blacklisted several places. --Finn Rindahl 05:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
QingdaoChinaGuide.com
QingdaoChinaGuide.com
The Qingdao International Beer Festival details @ (www.qingdaochinaguide.com/news/events/international-beer-festival.html) seem to be the top resource on the web. It provides current details that are gathered from local residents & resources. Can it be removed from your black list?
- This link is caught by \bqingdao(?:china|official)guide\.com\b. This site appears to be a commercial site owned by a marketing firm showing all sorts of businesses in Qingdao. I would suggest you request local whitelisting for the link you mentioned. EdBever 18:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- The entire site is extremely useful providing current details on transport, culture, tourism, education, sports, etc. and doesn’t deserve the stigma that is associated with being on this list. Besides, being a commercial site should not automatically warrant inclusion. Thanks for your consideration.--76.247.183.123 17:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
And if it was spammed, 76.247.183.123? And I quote the original report: "Relentless spamming of this site, myredstar.com, qingdaoofficialguide.com, qingdaochinaguide (the last two of which redirect to thatsqingdao.com) by multiple IPS". I would also suggest local whitelisting for the specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the report. White-listing individual articles/resources sounds good, but would still prevent users from citing new information on future articles/resources. The original report is more than 3 years old, has there been any recent activity? Sorry for asking, but what is the purpose of continuing to black-list a useful and trusted site that has current specific details on transport, culture, tourism, education, sports, etc. ? Hopefully this will not encourage wiki users to post information/details without proper citations. Thanks again--76.247.183.123 17:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, since it is blacklisted it can not be abused, and hence there is no recent activity - that is the purpose of the blacklist. Whether it is still useful to have it on the blacklist is a good subject for discussion. For now I would suggest to do a whitelist request, and see what the input there is. As in the original report it was described as 'relentless' - then I am not sure if it would not restart, and then it is better to have a wider audience before de-blacklisting (on the other hand, if abuse continues, it can always be re-added, though then it probably will never come off again). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 21:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sysoon.com
Sysoon.com
I think, that the website is OK now. I would like to ask you very kindly to remove it from your blacklist, if possible. Sysoon won more awards and continue to grow - it's a serious encyclopedia of death and dying. Please, check it and let us know your decision. I think, that spaming wikipedia in 2010 was done by one of the Sysoon's comptetitor. The investigation is not closed yet. Please, remove \bsysoon\b from global blacklist too (see Wikimedia Spam_blacklist) Sysoon is not a spam site or advertisement and it help to correct birth and the death dates and find more information about the deceased people.
\bsysoon\b
- WebAward 2010
- W3 Award 2010
- The 9th Annual HORIZON Interactvie Award
- 17th Annual Communicator Awards
- The above request was made by 217.23.247.20, 22:44, 24 July 2011.note added by Abd 13:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Original blacklisting request:[3].
- IP editor, sysoon.com is unlikely to be removed from the global blacklist, under the circumstances, but registered editors may request whitelisting for specific usages on any of the wikis. If a number of legitimate usages are shown, as evidenced by such whitelisting and actual accepted links, it is possible for a delisting request, again from an independent registered editor, to be successful. In particular, having done some searching on sysoon.com, it looks to me like the site may be useful in research, and so I'd suggest, first, the building of genealogical research resources on en.wikiversity, and an appropriate link there may be accepted through local whitelisting. Please create an account on en.wikiversity, please declare any conflict of interest, and contact me through v:User talk:Abd, I will assist. COI editors are typically experts in their fields, and are welcome on Wikiversity, if COI is declared and due caution is exercised. --Abd 13:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
backupurl.com
backupurl.com
Are the Spam blacklist kidding me? It's just a Web archiving site. I found all the records to Proposed removals. Also I don't think this is a spam website.—Ajfd11111 05:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, an archiving site. This is blacklisted since it can be used to circumvent the blacklist, just like a redirect site (if a spam-site is blacklisted on Wikipedia, you just create a backup with backupurl and link to that, and when they blacklist your backupurl you create a new one ..). I would suggest to ask for whitelisting of the specific links on the specific project where you want to use it. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- But I just try to ask for whitelisting, The blacklist rejected!—Ajfd11111 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's unclear what you mean, Ajfd11111. This is a decision for each wiki, and requests for whitelisting usually go on the local whitelist talk page, not on the blacklist talk page. The blacklisting of "archive" or "redirect" sites is common, because spammers use them. Here, you asked for delisting of the whole archive or redirect site, which would then let through, possibly, much spam. Of course this is going to be denied. If you have actual need for some pages from the site, go to your local whitelist talk page and ask for them to be whitelisted. You will usually have to show that they are useful, perhaps a specific usage. If an administrator agrees, they can whitelist the page and you can use it. Good luck. --Abd 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- But I just try to ask for whitelisting, The blacklist rejected!—Ajfd11111 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
elliottgann.com
elliottgann.com
This domain has been abusively blacklisted globally for all wikipedia websites since 2007. Please can you unlist this domain or put it in a more restricted blacklist (that should be the case normally).
Thank you. edit by PLC25 12:52, 16 August 2011, note added by Abd 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC).
- User is SPA, registered here to make only this request --Abd 14:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Discussions
- This does appear to be a use of the global blacklist for spamming only at en.wiki. That wouldn't be done nowadays, but then there was no local en.wiki blacklist, it didn't start up until July 2007. In December, it might have been more appropriate to delist and list on en.wiki, but "we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests." Whether or not this site should continue to be blacklisted at all is a separate issue, and I'm less than thrilled, looking at the site itself, but global is, at least technically, overkill. It is not impossible that legitimate users may have wanted to add some link to something on this site, and few will take the time to request delisting or whitelisting, too much work for one damn link. --Abd 13:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I'm the site owner but let's be serious who will request a delisting? Please let's have a look a the website to see what it's really is... In fact I don't care about wikipedia links I just want to recover the respectability of a non black listed url. If you decide to keep it in global blacklist then I have to manage with it and pray that Google don't take in consideration this. --PLC25 11:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Who will request a delisting, legitimately, is a user without a conflict of interest who wants to add a link. This is what you do: make sure that your conflict of interest is disclosed on your user page on, say, en.wikipedia. On the Talk page of an article where a link to your site might be appropriate as a link, propose the link. (Propose it without the "http://" or you won't be able to save the page, but people can just paste that into their browser and see the page.) Another user, not you, may then, if they agree with the link, propose it be whitelisted on the local project. If you get no response, you may add a couple of requests on user talk pages for users who have edited the article. Do not add many of these, be slow and patient. If even a few links are whitelisted, globally, it's then possible that, again, an uninvolved user may request delisting here. Just in case you are tempted, do not create an account and pretend to be such a neutral user, it could seriously backfire, making delisting almost totally impossible. Do it right.
- While it may seem unfair, the administrators who run the blacklists (I'm not an administrator here, though I am on another project) don't want to waste their time merely because you want to "recover your respectability." While the name of the spam blacklist is unfortunate, it is merely a list of excluded URLS. Often there was real spamming behind listings, but many sites are listed for other reasons, in practice. I.e., suppose an anonymous user adds a lot of legitimate links to a site. Suppose the user is found to have an IP than can be associated with the site. Bingo! "Spam blacklisting" for adding legitimate links, merely for failing to disclose a conflict of interest, and respect COI rules.
- The administrators here are concerned with the project, not with your reputation. If I'm correct, Google will not derank you because of a blacklisting here. (And I think that links on Wikipedia aren't used for page rank, someone correct me on that, please, if it's wrong.) That would give way too much power to a single volunteer administrator here and would expose the WikiMedia Foundation to lawsuit for defamation. Good luck. --Abd 17:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you anyway. When I put some links in wikipedia I was a bit angry with this project because in french version some guys took my content to put it in some wikipedia pages. Sometimes I didn't understand why my links were deleted instead of others. With this blacklist I was very discouraged because I began to be derank of google (but I think that Google now don't care about this). Wikipedia is such a huge project and has a lot of power in few hands. It's so easy to be in spam blacklist and so hard to be delisted... 4 years in Wikipedia jail now... Many websites created their own wikipedia page and they are not blacklisted... so weird ! --PLC25 12:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Reframe: you are not in jail. You are free, and there are things you can do and things you cannot do. Like the rest of us. If you want to know more about what you can do, you may email me or ask on v:User talk:Abd and I'll ask you some questions and advise you. It's possible some administrator here will take pity on your situation, but I'm not seeing that as likely. --Abd 18:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you anyway. When I put some links in wikipedia I was a bit angry with this project because in french version some guys took my content to put it in some wikipedia pages. Sometimes I didn't understand why my links were deleted instead of others. With this blacklist I was very discouraged because I began to be derank of google (but I think that Google now don't care about this). Wikipedia is such a huge project and has a lot of power in few hands. It's so easy to be in spam blacklist and so hard to be delisted... 4 years in Wikipedia jail now... Many websites created their own wikipedia page and they are not blacklisted... so weird ! --PLC25 12:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I'm the site owner but let's be serious who will request a delisting? Please let's have a look a the website to see what it's really is... In fact I don't care about wikipedia links I just want to recover the respectability of a non black listed url. If you decide to keep it in global blacklist then I have to manage with it and pray that Google don't take in consideration this. --PLC25 11:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
windows8update.com
windows8update.com
I would like to request that http://www.windows8update.com be removed from the blacklist. It's a valuable and trusted Windows 8 resource that's over 2 years old with over 650 posts and over 1200 comments. It has completely unique content and at this point is a reputable source of Windows 8 information. It has more than 640,000 monthly pageviews and over 200,000 unique monthly visitors and a Newsletter audience of 35,000 readers. It's being blacklisted as part of the Nnigma network but has never engaged in any spam like activities of any kind. Thanks for your consideration. Onuora Amobi --69.231.22.234 01:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
`:As you see, you could link to the site. It is not blacklisted here. It is however on en.wikipedia, ar.wikipedia and hi.wikipedia, which may suggest that this site is not generally wanted. You say "650 posts and 1200 comments" which suggests that it is a blog. For en.wikipedia, those just generally fail to be suitable links. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That would generally be a great answer except for the fact that almost all my competitors are listed and referenced for Windows 8. They are all blogs. Windows8news. Windows8beta. Windows8center. etc etc Thanks for your consideration. Onuora Amobi
- Now, that is not exactly a reason to list yours as well, is it? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Bottom line, Onuora Amobi, you are asking in the wrong place. If you believe there is a usefulness for this particular web site, it may not be appropriate for the wikipedias (Beetstra may be correct), but might be appropriate, say, for the wikiversities. If you can convince the local users of one of the 'versity sites that windows8update.com is a valuable resource, say for an educational resource, perhaps as a place to discuss or ask questions, it could be used there. The likely fate of the other sites on the wikipedias may be that they will be removed and if someone asks, they will be blacklisted. Don't bark up the wrong tree. If you'd like assistance with proper usage of this site on WikiMedia Foundation wikis, you may contact me at v:User talk:Abd. I have not investigated and this is not a specific opinion as to usability anywhere. I recommend that you register an account on en.wikiversity, enable and validate email for yourself, disclose any conflict of interest that you may have, on your user page, and use that account to pursue this. If you have a conflict of interest involving them, do not add links to web sites, in any controversial way. You may propose them, though, on user and other talk pages. If they are blacklisted, give them as the URL without the http://, so that the blacklist filter will not engage. People will be able to copy and paste that into most browsers, directly.
- I am actively soliciting your participation at en.wikiversity. You doubtless have some area of expertise or interest, and you can actually help there, and you will not be rejected merely because of a conflict of interest. Indeed, you may be welcomed because of it, if you will behave cooperatively. --Abd 18:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Onuora Amobi, you need to be at en:WT:SBL (to request delisting) and en:WT:SWL (to request whitelisting). If I may suggest, I would focus on the merits of this site, not on other sites which are listed. I will however have a look at en:Windows 8 and others. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
awurl.com
awurl.com
This is the URL for the "Awesome highlighter" web site. Like CiteBite.com, it is a great facility for highlighting text of interest within an archived copy of a web page, like this: awurl.com/OXYPMkSu5 . It is not a spammer site.
While it could, in theory, be used to make copies of spammer pages, I doubt there'd be much incentive for that, since the referenced pages come from archived copies, and thus presumably bypass revenue-generating ads.
There's great utility in being able to directly reference material within a web page. The "Awesome highlighter" provides that capability. CiteBite does, too, but each of the two sites has its own strengths and weaknesses. One advantage of Awesome Highlighter is that it allows highlighting more than one snippet of text on a page.
I propose that awurl.com be deleted from the blacklist.
If my prediction is wrong, and spammers start using it, then the right solution is not to blacklist awurl.com entirely, but, rather, to give Wikipedia the smarts to check the referenced pages (that is, the pages from which the archived copies were copied), to see whether THEY are blacklisted. It should be easy, since the original link is right at the top of each highlighted page. NCdave 04:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- NCDave, you are suggesting that developers create specific intelligence to allow the usage of one website? There is an easier solution: whitelisting of pages as needed, where needed. Show enough usages like that, maybe site delisting can be considered. Practically speaking, it's a pain, whitelist requests on en.wiki often sit there for a long time with no attention. I tried to clerk the en.wiki whitelist page to queue it for admins, to make it simple, but it wasn't welcome. But it's pretty much the only way, I suggest. Someone else might be able to pull it off. Beetstra is often helpful on that whitelist page, when he has time, and there are others who will be, also. The problem with this solution is that it can be beyond the ken of inexperienced users. --Abd 14:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is roughly as Abd says, some sites are in itself not spam sites, but they are (sometimes relentlessly) abused by spammers, as they are an obvious way around the blacklist. Redirect sites are one of those types, certain specific functions in search engines like google are another, and 'backup' sites are yet another. I do agree, this is one with an extra functionality (though I am not sure in which way it really benefits Wikipedia, I mean - whether or not it is highlighted, the statements in the document that 'verify' the statement on Wikipedia are in the reference, though I do see that this certainly can be helpful sometimes).
- These 'backup'-sites do have me ambiguous sometimes, and I think it depends. They are clear (necessary) uses on one side, and can be clearly abused on the other. We have to live with the realisation that certain spam can never be eradicated as there are too many unblockable ways around it, this may be one on the edge of that.
- The blacklist mechanism indeed does not detect what is on the page (which would be massive, one would have to load every page to check what is on it). That would be an unworkable method. My link-addition-detection-script does do this in a limited way, but if I would open it in full it would never be able to keep up.
- I think for now that whitelisting specific links is the way to go. As I said, I think the real use of this is a bit limited (but if there are a lot of requests for it, then it certainly would make sense to de-blacklist and use the blacklist the other way around (blacklist the abused stuff only). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
kayzen.az
kayzen.az
Hi, I'm an administrator of az-wiki and according to the requests from some users I would like to request that kayzen.az be removed from the blacklist. It's one of the best valuable and trusted resources in Azerbaijan. Wertuose 20:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Removed. I don't see why this website has been blacklisted (in March 2010). Probably because the user az:User:Papaturk added it on a lot of pages in a short delay, so it has been analysed as spamming.- Thanks for reporting, and please check out this list to see if some of the reverted links were useful. Best regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for operativeness. Wertuose 21:17, 2 September 2011 (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). |
aries.com
aries.com
I would like to translate en:List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations#Under_construction this table in the french wiki but the anti spam filter block my edition because of www.aries.com, but the reference in the table is www.aries.com.es which is completly different. A french contributor tells me to ask you to "remove the regexp « \baries\.com\b » and change it by « \baries\.com[\./]*$ » to continue to blaccklist aries.com and allow the url like aries.com.es." (I hope that you understand because I will not be able to explain it to you, for me it is chinese language). Could you please allow me to add the spanish site as a reference? Regards, 77.202.134.159 13:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am the contributor that suggested the regexp change to this user. The first I suggested will not work, I tryed « \baries\.com[^\.]*\b$ » instead but it doesnt work for all case. I don't know how to do it, I cant find a global whitelist. --Akeron 21:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe with 2 regexp :
- \baries\.com[/\.]*$ #to exclude aries.com aries.com/ aries.com. aries.com./
- \baries\.com[^\.].+$ #to exclude aries.com/* but allow aries.com.* (like aries.com.es used by a source)
- It seems to work according to my last tests. --Akeron 21:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a global whitelist, and I suspect the software would have to change, I believe the local wikis look at the meta Spam blacklist, and then at their own whitelist for exceptions. The meta-only spam blacklist is at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, and the local whitelist (meta only) is at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. The attached content page is the global blacklist. Were there a global whitelist, I presume it would be at Spam whitelist. As you can see, it's a redlink. A meta whitelist could be a great idea, increasing efficiency overall. This is not an opinion on the request here. As it is, the request may have to be made at fr.wiki/Spam-whitelist--Abd 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- We can fix it localy on fr-wp but the problems is the same for en-wp and all wikis using this extension (even a private wiki). I think that the regexp should be tweaked to not catch aries.com.es, suggestion :
\baries\.com[/\.]*$ #to exclude aries.com aries.com/ aries.com. aries.com./\baries\.com[^\.\w].*\b #to exclude aries.com/*, aries.com?* but allow aries.com.es- Maybe this discussion sould be moved to the Troubleshooting and problems section ? --Akeron 14:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a global whitelist, and I suspect the software would have to change, I believe the local wikis look at the meta Spam blacklist, and then at their own whitelist for exceptions. The meta-only spam blacklist is at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, and the local whitelist (meta only) is at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. The attached content page is the global blacklist. Were there a global whitelist, I presume it would be at Spam whitelist. As you can see, it's a redlink. A meta whitelist could be a great idea, increasing efficiency overall. This is not an opinion on the request here. As it is, the request may have to be made at fr.wiki/Spam-whitelist--Abd 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
buggyboot.com
buggyboot.com
Can't seem to add this site link to the wikipedia article on Dragons Den (UK). Adding as part of consistency with details of successful pitch. The only site I can find that is similar and blacklisted is 'buggyard\.com\b' which is not the same as buggyboot.com, which is perfectly fine. Some help would be appreciated. I can be found here. Thanks.
- It's looking to me like there was no intention to blacklist buggyboot.com, but it is indeed globally blacklisted. Is it possible that some expression in the "# ugg spam" section of the blacklist, which includes wildcards, is catching buggyboot? Feudonym, you can register a pseudonym here just as easily as on Wikipedia, and you can set your preferences to notify you by email of edits to your watchlist (unlike Wikipedia). Let me suggest you do that. I'm moving this to the delisting section. --Abd 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I moved it back. This looks like a regex problem to me. --Abd 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Done That should be fixed now [6]. Thanks for reporting. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I moved it back. This looks like a regex problem to me. --Abd 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
|
|
This section is for discussion of Spam blacklist issues among other users. |
Replacement for Eagle's cross-wiki linksearch tool
URL: http://wikipediatools.appspot.com/linksearch.jsp, example: [7]. The source code is hosted here. Let me know if there are any problems or if you would like any other tools. Bear in mind that this runs on Google App Engine, which is subject to these limitations and has no connection to the LinkWatcher database. MER-C 07:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done - More than one of these would be nice, actually. Kylu 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not done? Or at least explain what we should do. Template:spamlink or Template:linksearch give us links to Eagle's dead tool. I can't fix the templates to something else, not being admin. --Abd 21:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that should also happen. My initial post primarily for informational purposes only; some admin should have taken the initiative to replace in linksummary by now (after all, that's what happened on en.wp). MER-C 13:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for making a replacement. --Erwin 14:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that should also happen. My initial post primarily for informational purposes only; some admin should have taken the initiative to replace in linksummary by now (after all, that's what happened on en.wp). MER-C 13:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I feel much betta now. --Abd 02:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- The spam archives link in the linksearch template refers to Eagle's tool as well, so it fails. This should be fixed, or removed, pending, it wastes user time clicking on it. it could be replaced by direct links to searches, perhaps. --Abd 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I remember this tool having a regex search facility. That would be too resource intensive but it's easy to search each of prefix:User_talk:XLinkBot, prefix:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist, prefix:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, prefix:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam, prefix:Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard on en.wp and here on meta, prefix:Talk:Spam_blacklist + query (did I miss any?) -- creating a combined search servlet should only take 15 minutes. (That's tomorrow's job.) MER-C 07:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't going to happen for some time yet due to API bugs. MER-C 03:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- If they can't be replaced, broken tools should be removed from the protected templates, they cause users to waste their time. I'd fix it if I could! --Abd 12:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't going to happen for some time yet due to API bugs. MER-C 03:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I remember this tool having a regex search facility. That would be too resource intensive but it's easy to search each of prefix:User_talk:XLinkBot, prefix:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist, prefix:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, prefix:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam, prefix:Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard on en.wp and here on meta, prefix:Talk:Spam_blacklist + query (did I miss any?) -- creating a combined search servlet should only take 15 minutes. (That's tomorrow's job.) MER-C 07:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)