Talk:Spam blacklist

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]

This file is for use by, e.g., the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension

• /completed removals
• /completed additions
• /archive (general chatter)

Requests for changes

Additions

More open proxy linkspam

xenon-hebergement.net, dkmhosting.com, ifrance.com, iquebec.com, ufanet.ru, funpic.de

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

--Ilmari Karonen 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

www.haber18.com and www.kimim.com

Seems to be one person continually adding links to their website in turkish related articles eg [6] [7]. Often creates orphan talk pages just for inserting link spam[8]. Coming from multiple IP addresses ([9] has current list). Vandalising multi wikis e.g tr: [10], with reports is doing the same to az MartinRe 08:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And this is the link to az:wiki spam [11].--Ugur Basak 08:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam on work. [12] and [13].--Ugur Basak 21:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the spam on de: [14]--Ugur Basak 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Still spamming on Turkish Wikipedia.--Ugur Basak 08:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And on the en one, from a different IP to earlier ones. [15] MartinRe 10:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

this is on Azerbaycan Wiki , en:, en: and en: Is anybody checking this spam link, or i must post it somewhere else --Ugur Basak 08:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

misterwatchonline.com

• Repeatedly linkspamming en:watch. --Heron 11:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

zrhwiki.ch

[16] --84.157.139.43 10:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

0rz.net

The owner/operator/author of e-dsp.com (which was just recently blacklisted) is now using URL redirection services to spam his site to the same pages. 0rz.net is the one he's currently using. [17] -- uberpenguin

Same on dewiki: [18] [19] --Gwaihir 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

putinbayresort.com

More w:Put-in-Bay, Ohio spam: [20] [21] Rhobite 02:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

lopezzz.be

I've got spammed with many URLs at lopezzz.be. Such as:

lopezzz.be/buy-xanax-online.html lopezzz.be/buy-cheap-xanax.html lopezzz.be/buy-xanax-on-line.html lopezzz.be/buy-generic-xanax.html lopezzz.be/buy-cheap-xanax-online.html lopezzz.be/buy-xanax-cod.html lopezzz.be/buy-online-prescription-xanax.html lopezzz.be/where-to-buy-xanax.html lopezzz.be/buy-xanax-without-prescription.html lopezzz.be/buy-xanax-overnight.html lopezzz.be/buy-xanax-bar.html lopezzz.be/valium-vs-xanax.html lopezzz.be/valium-versus-xanax.html lopezzz.be/umaxppc-valium-vs-xanax.html lopezzz.be/order-xanax-online.html lopezzz.be/xanax-online-pharmacy.html lopezzz.be/xanax-prescription-online.html lopezzz.be/cheap-xanax-online.html lopezzz.be/purchase-xanax-online.html

Don't paste hyperlinks here, because spam blockers would block us. --Derbeth 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

furosemide.be, toprol.be, lisinopril.be, synthroid.be, norvasc.be

Repeated spam attacks, replacing articles with long lists of these pharmaceutical commercial links. Looks like a bot, and it's particularly vicious because it makes multiple edits from different IPs, so you have to do a manual revert. i.e.: [22], [23]. 134.10.44.224 08:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

physicsarchives.com

Repeated and ongoing linkspamming for physicsarchives.com to en:Computer science, en:Mechanical engineering, en:Physics, en:Mathematics, en:Informatics from various (mostly-anon) users, including en:User:130.161.182.245, en:User:Onestone, en:User:192.87.165.43, en:User:192.87.165.46, en:User:192.87.165.60, en:User:192.87.165.61, en:User:192.87.165.66, and en:User:192.87.165.110. Adding physicsarchives.com to the spam blacklist would be preferable as this has been going on for several weeks and blocking is not an option (IPs are from a large library and a university). —Ruud 16:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fresh spam today from en:User:192.87.165.20. —donhalcon^╤ 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Removals

omninerd.com

This site was previously blacklisted and subsequently whitelisted here. As I mentioned at that time, I believe the blacklisting to be against Blacklist Policy. The Wikipedia admin who requested the blacklisting (Wikipedia:User:Dmcdevit) was involved in a very long argument with me concerning links to OmniNerd a few months ago. At that time, I had been adding links from Wikipedia articles to relevant and informative articles published on OmniNerd.com. I was told to stop and an argument ensued (see Wikipedia:User:Uriah923/OmniNerd). Since that time, Wikipedia policy has been modified to specifically state that a person affiliated with a site should not add links to it in order to maintain NPOV. I have complied with this request and will continue to do so. I also have demonstrated my interest in the Wikipedia project (see Wikipedia:Special:Contributions/Uriah923).

My only actions since that time with respect to OmniNerd articles on Wikipedia has been to suggest a potential link which can be reviewed and added by an interested, impartial administrator. I have found no WP policy against such action.

It is my opinion that Taxman and Dmcdevit are acting because of a grudge they hold against me, and not because of any spamming actions that have taken place. A simple review of how each added link was reviewed and added by an impartial third party will reveal that. Some examples of such interactions follow:

• Wikipedia:Talk:ITunes#Blacklist issues
• [24] - Diff on Wikipedia:Hybrid vehicle
• Wikipedia:Talk:Battle_of_Poitiers_(1356)
• Wikipedia:Talk:Conventional_warfare#Alleged_linkspam

Here are the requested items:

• Site blacklisted: www.omninerd.com
• Article attempting to edit: [Wikipedia:Talk:Battle_of_Poitiers_%281356%29]]

I respectfully request that you review the situation and take quick action on my request for removal. 204.126.127.253 00:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (Wikipedia:User:Uriah923)

This is a completely bizarre assumption of bad faith. I don't hold a grudge, in fact, I have never had anything to do with Uriah outside dealing with the spam. And the fact that I have dealt with it doesn't make me partial, any more than a vandal fighter becomes partial once they've blocked a vandal. This user, an administrator of the unnotable site in question, has a long history of adding this spam. There was an RFC on the issue (the one linked at the listing) and consensus was reached that the site doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, and Uriah is either merely attempting search engine optimization or vastly overestimates the value of his website to us. In either case, there are quite a few en administrators who have weighed in and determined this is spam; despite which, Uriah has continued to violate the consensus in the matter. The listing here is useful and there is no reason for it to be removed (as not only are the links spam, there is demonstrated consensus that they don't belong). Dmcdevit 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First, calling the site spam does not make it so. Would you mind presenting proof what it is, exactly, that you consider spam on the articles linked to on omninerd.com? Second, I have not violated any so-called consensus. Would you mind presenting proof what I did to break any rules after being made aware of them? Third, blacklist policy specifically states it is only for problems that cannot be dealt with using the normal methods of blocking. If I am running some sort of spam campaign, or have done anything but be upfront and follow WP rules, then simply provide proof and take action against me.

Any cursory investigation of the site with show it to be very much not spam. Any cursory investigation of my activities on Wikipedia will show obvious and plain attempts to contribute by the rules. Any cursory investigation into the purpose of a blacklist will show that it is not the place for entire domains of healthy content to be banned simply because an admin doesn't like an editor because of a past altercation. 70.120.210.190 07:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (Wikipedia:User:Uriah923)

Well lets see, the relevant consensus was here including the direct quote: "there is a clear consensus that links to ON should not be in Wikipedia articles unless added by a longstanding contributor, and not prompted by Uriah." That was backed up by your assent on your talk page to "It's been decided to not link to the site, or anything in the site's domain from our articles." You violated that numerous times including here asking people to review your link after there was a specific consensus on that talk page not to include the link. So lets keep the blacklist so we don't have to waste any more time on the issue. - Taxman 17:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, Taxman only attempted to provide proof for one of the issues I brought up, that of me breaking consensus. I'm sure everyone agrees this is not the place to discuss that. Also, Taxman quoting himself is an inaccurate and misleading way to summarize the happenings on the so-called "consensus" page. Those interested, please read it (all of it) and see for yourselves. Try to identify anywhere on that page a reason why omninerd.com should be blacklisted. In fact, even more appropriate would be to visit omninerd.com and try to find any reason it should be blacklisted.

Some other important things Taxman failed to mention:

1. That page is outdated. It dealt with an old problem (me adding a lot of links to a site with which I am affiliated almost six months ago) - a problem that has not been repeated.
2. He overestimated the duration. The issue was for me and the site with which I am affiliated to be put on probation as punishment. The resumption of full privilege should be contingent on me demonstrating my priorities, which I've done by contributing much content to WP and following policy. There is no reason for the restrictions to remain.
3. It's obvious his issue is with my actions, not with the content on the site. As such, punishing the site is not fair to its owner (not me). If I've broken rules (and I don't think I have), then the action should be taken against me, not a site that I like. If I was high up the chain on kuro5hin.org and started adding links to WP all over the place and refused to stop, would it make sense to blacklist kuro5hin? Of course not. (To continue the analogy, if I ceased adding kuro5hin links and made solid contributions to WP for six months and then a third party reviewed, accepted and posted a link to kuro5hin, should the site then be blacklisted? Again, of course not. Unless the opinion of a couple of admins that kuro5hin articles aren't worth linking to in a WP article qualifies a page for a blacklisting. If that is the case, your list is way too short...)

To those making the decision: Please look at the present state of affairs and don't let the old issue taint the decision. The past has been dealt with and for the last five/six months, all WP rules have been followed. The content on the domain in question speaks for itself, and that is what should be considered in this case, not the conflicts between me and Taxman. 204.126.127.253 18:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (w:User:Uriah923)

That is your assertion that the consensus lasted for only a little while, one not backed up by the rest of the people involved in the consensus. And of course that assertion is self serving for you. The bigger point is that we don't want Wikipedia used for advertising, and that won't change ever. The present state of affairs is that you are again wasting people's time trying to promote your site. The easiest way to deal with that is to blacklist the site. We ideally don't care to block you because your other contributions are fine, but that doesn't give you free license to violate consensus and act in a manner not conducive to the best interests of the project. Though if you continue, blocking you once again is an option. We want this specific behavior to stop. So again, this is the easiest way to end the problem with the least wasted time. That to me amounts to the best solution. And again, if promoting ON wasn't your primary goal, you would have dropped this long ago. - Taxman 19:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything Taxman presented here that I haven't already addressed above. My interest is fairness, consistency, and my rights as a WP editor. I leave this in the hands of those responsible for whitelisting and hope that they will be able to dig through the mess, as I think the issue is actually quite clear at the core. uriah923 19:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

tinyurl

I TRIED to delete "See also /Delete", a dead link, from here on internet explorer and I got a spam filter warning for tinyurl.com:

Spam protection filter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This was caused by a link to an external site.

See the spam blacklist on Meta for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please request that it be fixed on the spam blacklist talk page. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://t*nyurl.com

I then tried to complain about it, and I get the same message here!

I think because I was complaining about the message and I copy and pasted http://t*nyurl.com also.

How can people complain about these messages if they cut and paste the messages they are complaining about and the same spam blacklist blocks them from complaining?

Suggestion: Why not change the warning to: The following text is what triggered our spam filter: tinyurl.com NOT http://t*nyurl.com ) Travb 16:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I figured out the problem, on the page I was tring to edit was: http:/tiny*rl.com/yt8xt, which was blocking the entire edit.

I would suggest:

• Changing the text of the warning screen. Delete the "http://" before the blacklisted webpages, allowing wikiusers to cut and paste their problems here.
• Explain on the warning screen that if a user attempts to save an entire page, and if one of the links is a newly blacklisted site, wikipedia will not allow the wikiuser to save it, suggest to the user:

• Go back and edit only a small section of the site without the blacklisted link, not the entire page. OR
• Delete the blacklisted site before attempting to save. Travb 16:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions about tinyurl

In addition to suggestions about how to reword the warning screen, I would like to reemphasize Joema ignored idea:

What about adding a note to the Wikipedia talk pages for w:TinyURL, etc, saying usage in Wiki articles is now deprecated, and starting 6-Feb-2006, edits will fail if a link shortening URL exists anywhere in the article? Joema 14:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand and agree with Raul654's argument, but I think this needs to be handled better.

• Change the warning screen (as per my suggestion above) which explains to users better what is going on.
• Maybe create a bot to destroy all of the w:TinyURL links, replacing them with a link to a wiki explanation page, explaining how to fix the link? It would be simple: have the bot replace: http://t*nyurl.com

with:

w:TinyURL tinyurl.com.

Where w:TinyURL is an explanation page explaining the policy, and explaining how wikiusers can fix these links.

What do you think? Travb 16:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The TinyURL article already says that it's blacklisted by Wikimedia (here is the diff where it was added, a week ago). What's the point in putting a similiar message on the talk page, which is less likely to get seen? Raul654 16:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made this point before, but it's worth repeating: Tinyurl.com is only one of many similar services. (see notlong.com/links) Be prepared for diversification by spammers. --jwalling 22:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone obeject to adding all of the ones listed there? Raul654 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Archival?

Huh? Why were many unresolved add/remove requests just sent to archive? -- uberpenguin

Being that hte page was very nearly 200 kilobytes mixed in no particular order, I didn't see any way of seperating the resolved from unresolved requests. Also, with two exceptions (Johnleemk's and Eequor's threads) I did not see any threads that had been active in three weeks. Raul654 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So nobody would object to me re-adding my request for addition to the list? -- uberpenguin

Go ahead. Raul654 03:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll add mine back as well. I'm glad I checked this. It seems meta needs more admins managing the spam blacklist. Rhobite 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Many discussions just get dropped by the original submitter, who doesn't realize that they need to make a case for removal. Sj 20:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not talk pages, please

I ran into this when trying to resave the whole of en:Talk:Phaistos Disc after an edit conflict. minilien (cot) com was cited there some time ago as evidence is a dicsussion, This is broken. 128.112.201.102 19:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not broken - we simply realized (after the GNAA used URL shortners to link to malware from wikipedia) that URL shortners are a huge security issue and should be terminated on the spot. Yes, this will create transition problems (sorry nobody thought of this when wikipedia was new) but it's better now than later. Raul654 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This blacklist has caused a great deal of lost data

I was doing a MAJOR rehaul of the -childbirth- article talk page on Wikipedia. Someone had a blocked list already in the talk page. It was already there, it wasn't stopped that time. I didn't add it. It was not added in my edit. All my edits, which took about 20 minutes to make, were lost. All of them. I clicked 'back' and it was back to the previous version. Normally... when say, someone edits it, it tells you, but it keeps a copy of your changes. Not this time.

Please fix this. It causes great waste of time and frustration on the part of Wikipedian editors. Please contact me with reply...Tyciol 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I used the back arrow on my browser and I did not lose my edits. I replaced the offending domain (makeashorterlink\.com) with the target URL. (See diff for details.) --jwalling 21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How did this edit get through?

I thought meltemi.pl was already in the blacklist, as it indeed seems to be. What gives? --Ilmari Karonen 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And again! [25] --Ilmari Karonen 19:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Snipurl

Hi there, I'm Elitre from it.wiki. I just found out that snipurl's urls are considered as spam. I just want to say that this choice gives me lots of problems. When searching for copyright's violations, we use Copyscape which generates veeery long urls; we paste these urls in some templates, user page and so on, but they won't work if not "snipped". (Here you should see 266 words matching.) Elitre