Jump to content

Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Nixeagle (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 18 February 2007 (: + ronago.net). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Eagle 101 in topic Proposed additions
Shortcut:
WM:SPAM
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. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, or Other discussions; 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.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|531931#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, it has probably been archived at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01 or Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02.

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 17 years ago38 comments8 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.

iamtryingtobelieve.com

Mostly spammed at en:Parepin and associated talk pages, as part of a viral campaign that is spreading towards English Wikipedia. Zscout370 02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please provide diffs showing this, thanks. Eagle 101 18:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


axweb0.org

Same were added to user talk pages:

And other url by same users:

  • www.topmeds10.tu1.ru diff by dereek.
Looks like all of these edits (see linked page, all originate from one IP) /axweb0.org. I'm creating a sub page as to not flood this page out with my 72 results. Try blocking the IP, it looks to be the only IP related in this, set autoblock to "on" to prevent more socking. I will do it, for now consider this Not done unless we start to have serious problems. Eagle 101 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just a note, this guy has now switched usernames, and must be on a new IP, as I desabled editing from all users on that last block. Eagle 101 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

New cases:

and shortly after, the spam-target changed:

Those are all on the same IP range, simply block 89.20.97.0/24 and the problem is gone :D Eagle 101 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

child-support-laws-state-by-state.com

Repeatedly spammed[3][4][5] this link across multiple articles on en.wikipedia using at least 3 different anonymous accounts. Warnings and blocks have had no effect other than to get him to shift IPs. See en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#The Christmas child support spammer: child-support-laws-state-by-state.com for details. (Permanent link) --A. B. (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow! that guy has at least 24 /16 ranges available to him... (76.166.0.0 - 76.190.255.255) I am going to suggest that we do a block on the 76.190.0.0/16 76.186.0.0/16 range for a few days and see if he has any more ranges open to him. If not then we can just use blocks to resolve this. If so, then we are going to have to consider blacklisting the domain. Eagle 101 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Comcast is the biggest (or 2nd biggest) broadband provider in the United States. You'd be blocking 65,000+ IPs -- probably all Comcast in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metropolitan area and maybe more of Texas. I suggest you may want to raise this question on en:WP:ANI first. We don't want our user names on Slashdot or Fark this afternoon. --A. B. (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
See Slashdot:
Qatar: 866,000 people Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex: 5.8 million --A. B. (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've made sure it was a soft block, now lets just hope they don't go to socking ;). Eagle 101 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

instant-car-insurance-quote.net

See:

A new IP from the same city as the insureme.com spammer just added a link [6] to another insureme.com site we haven't seen before:

  • instant-car-insurance-quote.net

"Insureme.com" is prominently displayed on that site; other insureme.com sites were blacklisted several days ago. See these additional links if more information is required:

--A. B. (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Quite clear link (clearly part of the original spam campaign. Again due to the number of IPs used in cases related to this, I'm going to blacklist this. Can anyone figure our a rough estimate of domains that this company has? This could be a long term problem. Done Eagle 101 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

voyager1.h80.org

Done (in progress cross wiki spam) Eagle 101 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

One more, I'm waiting on the list to propagate. Eagle 101 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just keeping track.

3 more, why not :D Eagle 101 17:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


www.adultfyi.com

a hardcore pornographic page, has been added on de:WP

Do you have diffs of it being spammed to a point beyond normal admin tools?
This request was most likely by de:Benutzer:Augiasstallputzer. This site was used as a source/reference for articles on de.wp, it was not being spammed. Seems he simply does not like the links or has other problems with them. Anyway, they should be discussed elsewhere. This is the wrong place. --Rosenzweig 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Regardless it won't get blacklisted without evidence. Eagle 101 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

yoyita.com

Done - pan wiki spam. Eagle 101 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cleaned. JoeSmack 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

tour-europe.org

Done more pan wiki spam in progress. Eagle 101 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

cleaned. JoeSmack 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

topmeds10.tu1.ru

Repeatedly linkspammed to mulitple articles by multiple IP addresses. Compared to axweb0.org reported above, many of the same articles are targeted and the IPs are in the same Russian ISP. Here are a few of the many, many expamples:

In addition, I've seen lots of linkspamming containing "topmeds", so perhaps any domain containing that word can be blacklisted (don't know if that's feasible, though). Edgar181 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Spammed in my multiple IP ranges, I'm going to go ahead and blacklist this consider this Done Eagle 101 21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

urlsnip.com

tinyurl type service. --Pgk 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)\Reply

Done Eagle 101 01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

cromaps.com

Cross wiki spam

Consider this Done Eagle 101 01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

domusmea-nekretnine.info

Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

HairLossAdvisory.com

Cross wiki spam, there are at least 7 other instances of this. So Done Eagle 101 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This guy just keeps changing site names. Before this one he was adding AcneTreatmentForum.com. >.> Eagle 101 18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

laserhairremovalanswers.com

Cross wiki spam, not that much but this IP has now added at least 15 links Eagle 101 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Eagle 101 17:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

StudentLoanAdvisory

Done, same IP as above, current and ongoing cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

AcneTreatmentForum.com

Cross wiki spam, same guy as above. Done Eagle 101 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.profrios.hpg.ig.com.br

Have you guys tried blocking the IPs? Or is it just too many? Eagle 101 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.sima.kit.net

Have you guys tried blocking the IPs? Or is it just too many? Eagle 101 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

ronago.net

cross wiki spam. Done Eagle 101 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 17 years ago61 comments19 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.

hostingphpbb.com

Why is hostingphpbb.com blocked? It's a forum creation site used by thousands of people.

81.106.72.33 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)tarnishedessenceReply

tvrage.com

Any clue why tvrage.com is blacklisted its a useful site for TV Shows and Actors & Crew info. Please let us link to this wonderful site that's way better then http://www.tv.com

It is on the blacklist because it was spammed. See this. Regards Eagle 101 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was actually blacklisted because someone (a user who even stated on his en. talkpage that he's a member of a rival site) showed two places that were "spammed", and a sysop or whatever here quickly accepted it. No offense. If you couldn't keep one user linking articles under control, then maybe you should target the user (now blocked), and not the site being linked. ;) --Linalu24 04:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


First off, this is not a vote, and for now I have commented out the vote section. I will contact the meta admin who did the blacklisting. But if it has been spammed across wikis, or by more then one IP, then its not likely to leave the list. Eagle 101 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It was actively spammed into articles by the websites owners and several "anons" - the fact of the matter is it still does not meet linking guidelines either. MatthewFenton 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

mojeosiedle.pl

Dunno if this is considered 'widespread' but... The address above is a Polish site hosting various forums focused around different local communities in Polish cities of Tró)jmiasto (Tricity. The tagline on some of those reads: "Talk to your neighbour without leaving home.")

Link additions by:

Since some of those edits came from one IPS, we blocked the whole subnet, pending addition to the blacklist. --TOR 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you please clarify? Is this a request to add a link to the blacklist? Eagle 101 02:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com

Came across this being on the blacklist while trying to edit the Charles Demuth article. The link in the article looks legitimate, as does the site itself -- I'm not sure why it's blacklisted. --24.7.101.196 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The link was being spammed across wikis. See this for more info. In fact the link was actually added by the same IP that was spamming the other wikis. (See here) The IP was 81.84.142.19, and it hit 11 wikis with that link (counting the english wikipedia link). Cheers! Eagle 101 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, odd. It doesn't look like they're trying to sell anything; maybe just the work of an overenthusiastic site creator? Well, anyway, I'll defer to the admins -- mostly just curious. -24.7.101.196 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Same here, on French Wikipedia, with Amadeo Modigliani, I don't think it deserve to be blacklisted. Because, non commercial and rich in iconographie. Please, leave it out. Best regards. -- Perky 10:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It was blacklisted because of cross wiki spam, exactly what this list is for :P. If it is suitable on a particular wiki, you can always request that the site, or even specific pages of said site, be whitelisted on your respective local wiki. For example it is en:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist on the english wikipedia. If you need it for another wiki, just ask here, and I can point you in the right direction. Cheers! Eagle 101 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Seems harmless, is not selling anything, has a very rich collection of artworks; the fact that the text is Portugese seems immaterial since all that viewers will want to do is look at the artworks. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why the site should not be available in all languages. Please unblock. --CliffC 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
No, Eagle, it is not on en whitelist, though there are requests for it to be so! see [28]87.194.23.18 08:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Johnbod of enReply

nolico.com

The Spam Blacklist complains about nolico.com on the Talk page for w:Compact_fluorescent_lamp. What evidence is there that nolico.com should be on the Spam Blacklist? Chrike 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The reason it is on the blacklist can be found here, hope that helps. Eagle 101 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've double-checked my original request and further researched both pressreleasegold and nolico.com. I don't think they're connected and I suspect I made a mistake when I made my blacklist request. I think they had a link on the pressreleasegold site as part of some link exchange program and I thought it was still one more pressreleasegold site. I recommend removing and I apologize for this mistake. --A. B. (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
consider it Done Eagle 101 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

geocities.com/nozomsite

This website is real and related and contains real data. Please remove it from the blacklist.

Useful in topics like:

This site was spammed into wikimedia projects. See this. Regards Eagle 101 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why such a website considered as a spam, Don't you agree that it is useful in the above mentioned wikipedia topics.
I'm afraid it was added to prevent abuse. Eagle 101 19:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is also listed twice in the largest human edited web directory that you all love here in wikipedia, see this, so I request to be whitelisted.

If you want this whitelisted on en, I would suggest that you ask at the english wikipedia whitelist. Cheers! Eagle 101 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I meant to remove it fromm the blacklist.

hem.fyristorg.com/kraftwerk

This is one of the first and largest Kraftwerk pages on the Internet, cannot understand why it is considered spam. It is listed under the "external links" section on subject Kraftwerk. Please remove it from the blacklist!

The site was spammed across multiple wikis, please see this. I would suggest that if it is useful for a subject on a particular wiki, that you request it be whitelisted on that wiki. Regards. Eagle 101 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I admit that I did additions to different languages on subject Kraftwerk, and that in hindsight it was stupid of me, although I don't consider it deliberate spamming. I feel like a criminal when an excellent non-profit, no-ads site is banned because of me. But it is me who is to blame and not the site I think, it is still one of the top five sites on subject Kraftwerk. I would be very glad if you would re-consider and remove the site from the black list.

netfirms.com

There have been at least four requests [29][30][31][32] to whitelist this on en.wikipedia. I started researching this and found the following:

"Netfirms, Inc. is the premier provider of web hosting, domain name, e-commerce, e-mail, e-marketing services and technology solutions. Our customers include families and small home offices, established businesses and large corporations. Netfirms powers more than 1.2 million websites to online success each and every day ..."

There were apparently problems with some netfirms sites in May 2006, but I think the overall domain was added by Naconkantari at another time; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Naconkantari/sbl. The example he gives looks like one more problematic subdomain. I suggest removing the overall netfirms blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Consider it Done. Eagle 101 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm taking this off for now, but if there is any spam again, we might have to put this back on. Eagle 101 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
There will be spam -- there are so many sites (1.2 million) hosted by netfirms that we're going to get spam from a few there just as we do from some sites on geocities, narad.ru or any other big hosting service. I think the answer is the same as with the other big services -- just blacklist by subdomain as needed. Otherwise, we're poisoning the whole lake to kill one snake. --A. B. (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


iyisozluk.com

Hello my site (iyisozluk.com) is now black list.This site is online Multi language dictionary turkish from other 12 language therefor I'm adding my link to 3 article (dictionary,turkish,turkey) all wiki country sites. I thing this very much links for wikimedia. What can I do now for my site ?

Sory my bad english

And Thanks ...

Looks like this link has been spammed, across multiple wikis, at least that is what I am taking "pan-wiki" spam to mean. From the blacklist log:
 \.iyisozluk\.com               # Jdforrester # pan-wiki spam

Hope that helps. If there are pages in it that are good and relevent to a particular page, I suggest asking for white listing on that specific wiki. Eagle 101 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No reply, so I'm going to assume for now this is Not done Eagle 101 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I am No Reply because I am looking this , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jdforrester#iyisozluk.com and I am waitting answer, but no answer. Please help me 81.214.126.124 09:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand, Please Read : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/02#iyisozluk.com Sory my bad English.. 81.214.126.124 09:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquotes.com

Why did these sites get blacklisted on Jan. 31 They have not made edits in Jan. As soon as they were told they had spam they quit adding it. Do we really want to black list sites like these because someone has problems with an editor. They associated these websites with some DSB web items sites. Check the domain register and you will find no relations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.101.26 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

See:
--A. B. (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

encyclopediadramatica.com

I wanted to link to this page from my user page cause I am a frequent contributor to it. Apparently this site isnt a big fan of it, I don't see how thats grounds from censoring the website.

Unless I've missed something, Encyclopedia Dramatica is merely a breeding ground for trolls and has no useful information at all. That's probably why it's blacklisted. Shadow1 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done - see these two conversations [33] and [34]. If you want to use it on a particular wiki, request it be whitelisted there, though I doubt they will do it. Eagle 101 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
For the record here on meta, see en:Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica:
  • "Note that links to Encyclopedia Dramatica are automatically barred due to the site hosting gross personal attacks and privacy violations (see the the Arbitration Commitee resolution)."
Looks like a pretty definitive answer to me. --A. B. (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

covermecarinsurance.com

http : //www.covermecarinsurance.com/articles/Automobile-Associations_5109.html is a legitimate reference in the American Automobile Association wiki. I don't want to remove it and leave the page unreferenced but I'm unable to remove some unrelated advertising without also removing that due to the blacklist!66.117.137.27 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request that it be whitelisted on your respective wiki, if you give me an address to your wiki, I can give you the proper page. Just get an admin to add it. Cheers! Eagle 101 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just looked at that URL. The whole site looks very spammy and I see no affiliation with the m:American Automobile Association. That particular page just has a very basic 3 paragraph overview of the AAA. Also, it looks like someone has already removed the link from the AAA article today. --A. B. (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well regardless, we never added that url to the blacklist, but we did add carinsurance.com to the blacklist. Let me fix so the regex won't catch this site. Consider this Done Eagle 101 14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

agepi.md

This domain is blacklisted, and cannot make references to their content such as laws and articles. agepi.md represents State Agency on Intellectual Property of the Republic of Moldova. Please remove it from blacklist. Thank you

Ok, this is odd, It is not logged, it is not in any of the archives, and worst of all, I can't even find it on the blacklist. So I'm assuming that there is a over-reaching regex somewhere, as soon as I find it, consider this Done. Eagle 101 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure its on the blacklist? Please see this. I've successfully inserted the link into a sandbox. Eagle 101 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

blogs.myspace.com

The edit where this was added asserts with no evidence that Jimbo requested it. I would like to see at least a diff to where this request was made or it should be removed as out of process. This addition was also not logged. --Random832 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest asking jimbo on his talk page, if he indeed did not request it he would say so there. Eagle 101 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
He never answered when this was brought up before, and I think that the burden should be on Raul654 to produce evidence of the claim in his edit summary. We don't know if he specifically requested that they should be added to the blacklist, or if he said he doesn't like their use of sources and was misinterpreted, or even which hat he was wearing. --Random832 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Try sending him (Jimbo) an e-mail (using the special email this user function), and request that Raul provide some proof, perhaps on his talk page. Invite him to comment here perhaps? Eagle 101 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Also, this has already been brought up here. Eagle 101 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Eagle 101 here. But more importantly, I tend to trust Raul, barring any evidence to the contrary, when he acts in ways that suggest that Jimbo asked for things. Just as I tend to trust my other fellow admins when they say that, or when they say (on en:wp) that something is an WP:OFFICE action, I trust them there too rather than getting into revert wars or sparring about it. And when Raul makes a mistake, which is not that often, it's not because he's malicious, it's because, hey, he's human, as are we all. Coming in here and saying things like "the burden is on Raul" isn't very friendly in my view, and may not be the best approach. Better to explain why this really isn't a spam link, and ask politely for a review. On the face of it, it certainly appears to be such a link just by the name. Also, this list ultimately exists to defend the wikis from garbabe and there is not that much harm from having a link on there by mistake. More harm comes from not having links on there by mistake. So I support erring on the side of caution. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hm, doesn't AGF apply on meta?--Doc glasgow 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
See this for Jimbo's reply. Eagle 101 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

fotoplatforma.pl

Please review my address www.fotoplatforma.pl at the black list. It was honour to me to show some of interesting photos in Wikipedia but when you find it as a spam I was surprised. If you have possibility - check up all my links and You will find some of them are very old because many people and authors of articles find them valuable. I spent some years to collect photos of butterflies and flowers and more. Most of them are very sharp, colorful, valuable. I worked hard to add good quality links to wikipedia. More then 50% of visitors add my website www.fotoplatforma.pl to favorite, Google and Yahoo show my website very high because this content is not spam. Do you ever find my links about butterflies among apple tree? What do you mean - cross spam? Photos of natural environment means thousands subjects and if one day someone find nature as a cross spam it is really new point of view for me.

If You decided to stop my work to Wikipedia - let me know - thats all and enough to do with me. Spam list with my www.fotoplatforma.pl is unsuitable and wrongful to me thats the reason I asked to remove it.

best regards Marek foto@fotoplatforma.pl

Please also see discussion about this topic on my talk page here. I think I've explained quite well why the link was blacklisted, if you don't understand why it was blacklisted please ask. Thanks. Eagle 101 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Suite101.com

I tried to add a very helpful article from this site at http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/wisconsin/110633 as a reference to the article en:Mifflin Street Block Party, and was blocked. I've saved the reference without the url, as you can see in the references section (it's currently #3.) I don't know why the link was blacklisted originally but I would really like to be able to use this as a reference, if it won't cause too much trouble. I'm an administrator on enwiki. Thanks... Grandmasterka 08:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The reason why its on the list can be found here. There has been discussion about taking the site off the list, which can be found here. Just make a request at WP:WHITELIST to have your particular page of suite101 allowed. Ie, have the following whitelisted '\bsuite101\.com\/article\.cfm\/wisconsin\/110633'. As you are an admin on enwiki, you could add it to the list yourself. Eagle 101 16:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Beside the spam/COI issue, there was also the fact that these are effectively self-published, thus not meeting en:WP:RS and en:WP:RS. The only links whitelisted to my knowledge have been interviews of the subject of the article of the link, based on the exception in the guidelines for citing the subject of an article's work. Within the long sage linked to above, you'll find some discussion as you skim the exchanges. Suite101.com claimed otherwise but this was patently true if you spent several hours on their website as many of us did. --A. B. (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Huh. I didn't even know about that whitelisting page. I whitelisted the specific link (just what I needed for the reference.) The article on Suite101 is very comprehensive to me, but I'll try and find better references later... But the article is linked from the main page right now. So, you can disregard this entry. Grandmasterka 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/

Under what circumstances can a web site be spam blacklisted ?

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ is an information web site concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is the most comprehensive web site on Parkinson's Disease - far more comprehensive than the Wikipedia article. Consequently, it appears on all of the Parkinson's Disease web sites including National Parkinson's Disease organisations and Parkinson's Disease patient forums. However, it does not appear on Wikipedia at all solely because it is blacklisted. Consequently, when anybody adds the web site to the relevant Wikipedia articles it is immediately removed.

The web site is not spam. It contains no pornography, racism, or politics. It does not contain any adverts at all. It does not sell anything. It does not promote or represent any company or individual. It does not mention any individuals. The only reason it was blacklisted is that the first person to add it was banned during conflict with other editors. Is that reason for spam blacklisting within Wikipedia guidelines ? Please let me know the original source for the guidelines concerning this matter, and under what circumstances the web site would be removed from the blacklist. --XX7 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is the reason your site was blacklisted (see here). Basically there were many new accounts trying to add this link. I will ask the person who did the blacklisting to comment. Eagle 101 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It can bee seen using a domain check, that the web site is not owned by an individual. Viartis Limited is a medical research organisation that is part of one of the major Universities. I know, because I work for the University. If any individual has previously claimed to own the web site, they are either an imposter at worst or only a lowly employee at best.

Are different people, or people in different guises being the first to add a web site grounds within the Wikipedia regulations for a permanent ban of that web site ? Please refer me to the relevant regulations on Wikipedia, because, even if that was the reason for the blacklisting, this does not appear to be one of the reasons allowed by the regulations for imposing a permanent ban. The imposition of the blacklisting presently doesnot appear to have been imposed within the regulations. All I see from the link provided is evidence of one person on one occasion adding one web site to one article relevant to that web site. If this were grounds for a permanent ban, hundreds of thousands of web sites would have to be removed and permamnetly banned. Under what circumstances would such a ban be lifted. --XX7 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

We are not a court of law here, the regulations are plain and simple, can we deal with the spam in any other way? If not it goes on here. Normal canidates are when people spam a site across wikis. (adding the same site to english, french, german, ect wikipedias). The second primary reason is if multiple accounts are adding the link, (or multiple IP ranges normally), and all admin attempts to stop it don't work. Again, I'm asking the person who did the original blacklist to comment, I know they are still active. Regards. Eagle 101 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to officious. It's just that, whatever the history, making useful information available seems to have been the real victim. The only Wikipedia article really involved is Parkinson's Disease. Whitelisting the site (if that's the correct term) would not mean that the site would appear on that article. The editors and administrators on that article appear to very resistant to alterations, and may not then enable anyone to list the web site anyway. However, consensus is able to prevail on all articles. Majority rule is well within the principles of Wikipedia, but blacklisting a good web site solely because the first person to add it was subsequently banned does not appear to be. There is no inherent fault at all with the web site in itself. If the web site was whitelisted it could easily be reversed if necessary. --XX7 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it has to do with "the first person to add it was subsequently banned", I think it has to do with a more widespread spam issue. Anyway I'm contacting the person who added this to the blacklist. Also just note, at least the english wikipedia considers itself as not a democracy. ;). In any case I am going to notify who did the blacklist. Eagle 101 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Mmm looks like they are not around, I will think about removing it myself, let me dig up some stuff first (see if I can find a further reason for the blacklist). Eagle 101 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, thank you. I assume that whitelisting can be readily reversed if necessary. Given that this site appears on all the other Parkinson's Disease Forum and Organisation web sites, the issue is otherwise likely to come up again. --XX7 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 17 years ago49 comments18 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).

artnet.de

please unblock (first of all all magazine-articles): artnet sometimes has excess value, e.g. artnet.de/magazine/features/brauneis/brauneis06-30-06.asp -> great article & songs from the artist. there is no reason to block such an interesting page..!?!! 138.246.7.114 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Partially done. I have restricted the block to only artnet.de/artist - Andre Engels 11:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why? Because there is sometimes between all the ads maybe an information? That doesn't make sense. --Hedwig in Washington 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Because it blocks the pages that were spammed before, and not the one that is mentioned here. - Andre Engels 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I obey whatever the META Admins decide! I checked that link and it seems to make sense! 8-))) --Hedwig in Washington 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
This looks Done. Eagle 101 03:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry no - I still have a problem with [[35]] which is an auction record with pic from 1993 with no advertising & the only pic on the net of this artwork. I have listed it on the en whitelist requests ages ago. The exact page is: wwwDOTartnetDOTde/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=7F09A16903D9419E - maybe if you can allow "LotDetailPage" items? Johnbod of en 87.194.23.18 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is Done, see this Regards Eagle 101 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sledtv.org

Was curious as to what happened to the sledtv.org site, then i saw that it had been blacklisted, did a little poking around and never saw any removals but one and no infractions, warings etc, why was this blacklisted? I believe it should not be, and should be reversed

It was blocked as being one of a series of URLs, added by the same spammer from different IPs. Examples given were [36] and [37]. - Andre Engels 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done Eagle 101 21:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rake Yohn

I was trying to revert a lot of vandalism on the Rake Yohn wikipedia page and I keep getting the spam blacklist thing. What's going on? --164.82.144.3 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There must be a link in the page that has been blacklisted. Remove it and you should be able to revert. Cheers! Eagle 101 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is Not done Eagle 101 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

StormBringer

I tried to put some code on the wiki in spanish but a message appeared that states that is black listed. This is part of the code:

< div style="overflow:auto;

I don't know what happened.

See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8829. - Andre Engels 08:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://ibtimes.com

Chronic spamming by en:User:Dck7777, en:User:Wog7777, and a bit by en:User:70.18.40.105. Total 118 contributions, all linkspam, all took forever and a day to cleanup: after reviewing, every link that proceded pattern http://ibtimes... was linkspam, and has been removed: [38]. However, link with pattern http://www.ibtimes has quite a few valid links: [39]. I'm thinking it likely has something to do with how the link is placed to viewers on the outside vs. how they see them internally. Perhaps you could simply block http://ibtimes: it might be enough to slow the spammer down. -Patstuart 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
It appears to not be working. I ran a test page, and didn't get any problems: what's more, there were two more spammers added to the list of socks. All come from New York City. Patstuart 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply


Talk:Reparative therapy

I just tried to edit [40] and got the following:

Spam protection filter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.
You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the Spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to allow a particular link without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the Spam whitelist talk page.
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://blog DOT myspace DOT com
Return to Main Page.
(Note that in the above, I had to change the URL of the blacklisted text so I could post it here) After, I tried searching the text and found nothing. I copied all the text to my word processor, searched, found nothing. Please help. Thank you! Joie de Vivre 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I found the links and "broke" them -- the page is editable now. --A. B. (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Is this something that I, a standard editor, can do or learn to do? Joie de Vivre 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sure -- Look at what I did. I just made sure there was not a complete, uninterrupted URL. I got rid of the http://www. part.
Alternately, you could just put a spaces after the http:// and the www; a human can still interpret the link but browsers and MediaWiki software can't:
  • http:// www .myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=7428306&Mytoken=20050611060821
Blacklisted links often aren't very useful -- in such a case, just delete the link. I did not have the time to evaluate these links; we're less picky about link quality on talk pages. --A. B. (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

CSS code causing a hit

I recently tried to submit an error to w:Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. As the error resulted in a fair amount of exception code, I posted this along with the report in case they needed it. To avoid cluttering up the page, I put it in an overflow section. However when I submitted it, the filter blocked it with the text cited being "overflow: auto; " and "height:" joined together (obviously I couldn't put it together as it would also trigger the filter. Surely this cannot be. Harryboyles 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

See bug #8829. --.anaconda 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.xs4all.nl/~wichm

There has been major vandalism to a featured article (Kinetoscope) involving the wholesale deletion of an entire top-level heading. I can't revert this edit because apparently this link in the original text exists. I am 100% certain it is not spam. As this article is likely to be on the front page soon, could this please be dealt with immediately so as to restore the featured article to its original text ASAP? Thanks, 82.35.33.45 (Girolamo Savonarola on en) 11:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you are referring to the English Wikipedia article, it appears that this problem has been fixed.[41] --A. B. (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

jewsdidwtc.com

Following a recent mention of the jewsdidwtc.com website and a slideshow of images from that website on notable news source CNN, I think that continued blacklisting of jewsdidwtc.com prevents a relevant reference from being discussed on the issue of media integrity. See en:JewsDidWTC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.15.119.166 (talk • contribs) 6 February 2007 (UTC)

itsmarta.com

I am trying to edit the w:Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority but I am getting a Spam Proection Filter error. It says: 'The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://www DOT itsmarta DOT com' Please advise; this is the main government site for the transit agency and should not be listed as spam. If you need to reach me I am w:User:Biomedeng on the English wikipedia.68.158.105.112 01:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done, this has been fixed with a minor change in the regex for marta.com. Thanks for letting us know! Cheers! Eagle 101 05:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

en:Wikiquote problems

On en:Wikiquote, the spam filter (which I don't recall seeing announced on our project, where I'm a sysop) is actively interfering with our ability to discuss problem content. I ran into it when I tried to move archived deletion discussions to a new logging system, which was blocked because one of the discussions included a blocked HTTP address.

I can understand a spam filter for wiki articles, but not for discussion pages. It is very common for Wikiquotians to include suspicious URLs in deletion discussions, so that we can come to an informed decision, but we've been blindsided by this "improvement". If I'm reading Spam Filter correctly, a user interface for tweaking a project's use is in the "good idea" stage, implying that we need to be MediaWiki hackers to address this problem. As I already have about a year's backlog of maintenance work (none of which includes spam), I'd like to know if there's a simpler solution for us, even if it's only temporary. Can we just turn it off for a while by editing something accessible by sysops (as opposed to developers)? Thanks for any insight. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No but you can simply replace all instances of http:// with nothing. (just copy to word or what not). This blacklist has been around for quite some time ;). Just remove the domain that was a problem, and archive. Easiest way to do it is to remove http:// infront of the problem links... trust me I have the same problems on en:WT:WPSPAM, a wikiproject that needs an archive every 3 or so days. Cheers! Eagle 101 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but I have a real problem with modifying other people's posts without permission and effectively deleting convenient links just because someone not involved in the project decided we can't be trusted to use such links judiciously and appropriately. There is a legitimate reason to discuss suspicious links, and they certainly shouldn't be unilaterally banned from discussions across all projects without discussion or notification of the affected projects. Sorry if I seem a bit snippy, but I get really tired of slipstreamed changes to the MediaWiki environment that no one bothers to announce or justify to the project contributors (or even the sysops!). We have only one developer on our project, Brion, and appealing to him for help is like asking the President for assistance because you have no town councilman, state representative, or senator. It's not like en:Wikiquote is a tiny project; it's the largest Wikiquote (which itself is the 3rd-largest project behind WP and Wiktionary), and is in the top ten Wikimedia sites for Alexa-ranked popularity. We should have a better solution. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Jeff Q, aren't all 700 wikis impacted by this the same way? This general approach seems to be acceptable to most other wikis. The spam blacklist would be a lot harder to process if there was some sort of check to decide what sort of page was being edited. But you certainly could put in such an enhancement request against MediaWiki, I would expect. I must say I'd not vote for it though, as while I do recognise some inconvenience to you, I think that allowing all links on talk pages would leave a very big hole for spammers to drive truckloads of SEO through. If there is some other way to make things easier that might be worth exploring, can you bring it up? The spamlist (and this behaviour) has been around since 2004, right? ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Jeff, please see your ability to create a w:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist for En-quote alone. I also disagree with you, like Lar. Futhermore, why do you have such a huge problem with editings others' comments? It is only six characters and is a necessity. One may also argue with you on the fact that they are not project contributors when this is basically the heart of all projects and, therefore, the contributors to this project are contributing on behalf of your project as well. Please also recall that it is not the developers, nor anyone else's responsiblity to inform everyone on all different projects of changes to the software, spam lists, or the like. You can watch this page and get an e-mail every time it is changed or sign up to one of the Mailing lists if you would like to receive information in that fashion. Cbrown1023 talk 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Individual projects can set up whitelists to make exceptions for their particular projects -- for example, see en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I think this is very easy for an admin or your developer to establish since it's an option built into the MediaWiki software.
And, no, nobody's "slipstreamed" this feature into MediaWiki -- it's been around for countless Wikiyears. --A. B. (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Responses to the above comments:

Slipstreaming. Unannounced software updates are an annoyance, but this doesn't seem to be behind this issue. My apologies for the irrelevant tangent.
You could watch this page. I currently watch over 3000 pages between en:WQ and en:WP. I'm sure I'm not the only person who is aware that (A) watching everything of interest leads to insufficent attention to anything; and (B) one cannot expect to watch pages that one doesn't know exist unless and until they affect one's work. I had never even heard of Spam Filter until it hit me in the face.
Spam-whitelist. It is absurd to modify a MediaWiki support page (which only admins can do anyway) just be able to include a questionable URL in a discussion. But thanks for letting me know anyway, as it may be of use for other reasons.
All 700 wikis. I'm sorry; I missed the interwiki conference where designated representatives from all 700 wikis agreed to this spam filter and duly communicated it to their projects, along with appointing someone who would deal with configuration changes requested on each project. Or was this feature created by a staff of conscientious but overworked developers who were answering a call from several busy, spam-plagued projects, thought it would be a good idea for everyone, and simply implemented it everywhere? (Okay, I concede most would happily accept this. But when you've got no active developers and many months of backlogged work, each new obstacle is a royal pain.)
Editing others' comments... is only six characters and is a necessity. It violates the principle of keeping one's mitts off others' postings, and as a sysop I set an example for the community whether I want to or not, so I take it very seriously. But I concede this is probably the simplest solution, and I don't want to create unreasonable work for the folks that make this whole wiki world possible.

Despite the grousing, I do appreciate the information, and believe I have what I need to get the job done. Thank you all for your help and your considerate responses to my somewhat testy posts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to hear you so disturbed, Jeff, and generally I agree with you on badness of modification of other editors, even the URL in question is merely a spam. "why do you have such a huge problem with editings others' comments?" said on the above, it is a problem of ethics in my opinion. You step beyond a moral hazard. It is YoIt is under GFDL so legally allowed, but in most of country Copyright Law assured people to be properly assigned their words to their identification. So I am surprised you think it simply okay. Copyright infringement is not only c&p-ing others' quote. Unremarked alteration is also considered in the copyright infringement, and not only copyright infringement but it could be considered libel due to wrong attribution. So I am afraid you guys take it too simply and superficial. And this kind of sensitivity is strongly required to keep and maintain quote repository, so I think this feeling is shared by Wikiquote community, not only by English one, but also other sisters.
Once I modified my own comment simply from the same reason, and I was very unpleasant. I am afraid you haven't been understood why, but wrong attribution, specially without showing who you are and why explicitly, you break both law and moral.
And "For many Wikiyears?" here I found wrong information. Please do not give an advice about what you don't know well. It could be the whitelist implemented on the MediaWiki, but on Wikimedia project it hadn't been used until the late 2006. Check the page you showed, the first edit was done on October 2006, when it was activated. It is a bad behavoir to give wrong information to local sysops in trouble, specially to advocate your argument. I don't know if you are on a good faith or on a bad faith, but simply this kind of wrong assertion is unwelcome. It doesn't help discussion following the right course, but tend to lead it to the wrong direction. Aphaia 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
"For many Wikiyears" -- I was referring to the blacklist, not the whitelist. In re-reading my comments, I see that I was unclear. --A. B. (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your clarification, so it was around years, while we can still argue if it is many enough to be called so ;) This kind of subjective description is not helpful anyway. --Aphaia 02:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Aphaia, I respect you greatly, but that comment you just made upsets me greatly. Cbrown1023 talk 01:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
As far as the whitelist is concerned, I believe they were referring to the local whitelist on each wiki. You guys have one, at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist , the similar page for the english wiki can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist . That as far as I know has been around since the blacklist has been around. This list is designed to be used for spam, and has been used for that purpose for over 2 years now, see some of the spam that this list has stopped: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], and more. If you have ideas on how to prevent that type of spam without a global blacklist I am all ears, but this solution has been working for over 2 years now. As far as the copyright stuff goes, I would be asking Brion, or a real lawyer, rather then just guessing about this stuff. ;) Eagle 101 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Futhermore, as I told Jeff on his talk page at quote, I normally wouldn't condone editing others comments, but in this case it needs to be done. Anyway, the http:// is only used there as a technicality and probably wouldn't be used outside of it, and would, therefore, not be altering the content of the comment or "quote". Since you compared editing others' comments to quotes, I feel I can do thse same thing. You state that cutting and pasting quotes (i.e. changing their apperance) is against the law. But Wikiquote is totally based upon re-formatting and showing quotes in a new way, normally they are spoken or written in a book, and by presenting them on a website, we are changing their appearance as well. If you follow that logic, we would have to eliminate Wikiquote altogether because we make changes like that all the time, which obviously isn't right. Cbrown1023 talk 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Cbrown1023, if we cite a quote to a academic paper, we are expected to remark which emphasis had was made by the original author and which by the paper's author, orthography is modified or not etc. Or you might take a risk to be considered you altered the text fittable for your argument. In the real life sometimes the requirement to keep the text with its format as same as it exists could be so severe. --Aphaia 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It was my fault to make the argument unclear; "c&p quotes", I meant, mainly types happened on Wikipedia, as if it were contributors' original. But c&p quotes could be copyright violation in some circumstances; I would remind you why French Wikiquote closed. They were claimed some of their content had beenwas c&ped from other quote website. Other type concerns may be found at "Holy Grail" ... (I hope it remains still concerns, not a real and serious issue though...) Aphaia 02:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aphaia raises interesting points. However, I think it's easy to confuse two different aspects here. On the one hand, we regularly edit article content without concern because we agree that the content is not ours to keep, that we are only contributing, and that our contributions are noted in the article edit history. (I'm fairly sure this goes well beyond any copyright requirements anywhere, because MediaWiki is one of the few media where one can actually examine each and every character contributed by a person. Surely no nation has a copyright law so restrictive that it isn't satisfied by a general crediting in a bibliographic page for contributions to the entire work. We can show every bit for each article.)

But that's not the issue here. As Aphaia says, we're talking about discussion pages, where posters actually sign their comments, and editing them makes it look like they said something else. Adding missing signatures and even some minor reformatting doesn't materially affect the content (although I can see counter-arguments), but removing or striking material appears to the subsequent readers as if the person wrote the redacted material, which isn't true. One can examine the history to see this is not the case, but one also cannot fault a poster for feeling violated.

To dodge the spam filter, I can probably do the following without too much harm:

  • For bare URLs (e.g., http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#en:Wikiquote_problems), I can nowiki the URL. This gets past the filter, but leaves the text, without the link.
  • For bare links (e.g., [48]), I can nowiki and perhaps parenthesize the link, which communicates the address without providing a clickable entry. (This is no different from a citation of the material in a pure-text work, as it would have no way to provide a clickable hyperlink.)

In either case, after having looked at the result from the points of view of a new reader and the original poster, I feel compelled to insert a bracketed, italicized editor's note at the earliest possible point in the text, as is often done in professional publications, to make clear what has been done. This may still be controversial, but does the least violence to the passage while avoiding the filter, and follows a common, recognizable publishing-industry practice.

One remaining problem is a labelled URL (e.g., this discussion), where the text doesn't show the URL, just provides a hyperlink. The URL must be made available. Nowiki'ing it could be done like this:

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#en:Wikiquote_problems this discussion]

But this changes the reading experience. In fact, it makes the original poster look like they don't know how to create a proper labelled link. Even an editorial comment seems inadequate here. This is the kind of link that caused me to stop my work and come here for answers.

But on the practical side, I belatedly realized that the link in question was my own post in a discussion. (This is what happens to your brain when you manually reformat 700 deletion discussion in a short period.) As the original poster, I've decided that I care more about passing the spam filter than presenting the original reading experience, so I give myself permission to change it!

This specific example turned out not to be a problem, but the general one remains. I hope that the developers will consider this problem and how we might fix or avoid it in the future. Thanks to everyone for their comments! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am going to note something here, if you look at the edit page of a talk page on en:wikiquotes, like here, you will see a phrase at the bottom of the edit box that looks something like this:
  • If you do not want your contribution to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.
Thats on the talk page, if there are issues with this wording, it needs to be talked about elsewhere, I don't think the talk page of the spam blacklist is the correct location for this. I'm not saying changing what one says is "ok" but, the simple breaking of a link (such as http:// www.badlink.com), or the simple removal of the http:// (like www.badlink.com) is far less of an evil then the spammers (and spam) that this list was designed to stop. Eagle 101 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Eagle, I was wondering when someone was gonna bring that up. :) I wasn't going to because I thought that I had beaten the issue to death already. Cbrown1023 talk 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Other discussions

Latest comment: 17 years ago26 comments15 people in discussion

Question on what is acceptable

Should a domain be added on one wiki by say 4 IPs (on four seperate ranges), is this acceptable to add to the spam blacklist? Or should we be reserving this for only cross wiki spam? Either way is fine by me, but if its the latter (cross wiki only) we should update the header of this page from:

  • 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.

to

  • 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 on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived.

Ideas? Eagle 101 06:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it can be for one wiki only. Either that, or we need individual blacklists by wiki. By the way, I think "by multiple users" should be modified to "multiple accounts".
Note that there are cases where en:WP:IAR apply (IAR is policy on 15 other Wikipedias as well). For instance, some spammers may spam only one domain to one article, but they are so persistent (or vandalistic when confronted) that the only other alternative is to permanently protect or semi-protect an article, something some wikis won't do. See Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01#middlesell.com for one extreme example. Likewise, I think anytime a spambot or open proxy is used, it's worth blacklisting at first sight.--A. B. (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

List_of_nicknames_of_European_Royalty_and_Nobility

I tried to add a link to the 'List of Treaty Titles for Monarchs' page on this page, but the update failed due to a link I didn't include (to an elzibethtudor site) how should I address the 'blacklisting after linking' that apparently happened, and how do I get my link added? I'm user Bo on wikipedia.

Depending on the nature of the link you can:
  • Remove the offending link
  • Replace the offending link by a URL in text
  • Ask on your Wikipedia for whitelisting or here for removal from the blacklist.
- Andre Engels 13:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Robert Saxon

This page can't be edited - but I'm not clever enough to work out why. Suggest it be removed from blacklisting - all I wanted to do was add a flag to say that it looked like a fan site and needed attention. Thanks Testbed 10:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)testbedReply

All you have to do is remove the link from the article, and you should be able to save. The software even points out what link is the problem The following text is what triggered our spam filter: blah. Hope this helps, Cheers! Eagle 101 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sandbox

I don't have a clue why my sandbox article on St. Louis Arsenal is being blocked for spam. I've done various comparisons to see what's different and can't find the problem. The last version I want to restore is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Americasroof/Sandbox&oldid=107726325

Thanks (I'm on Time Warner and I don't know if there is a I.P issue) 68.175.68.54 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Weird. I logged in and I'm getting an I.P. for my sig. 68.175.68.54 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The system has definitely blown up. The messages are major league wierd. I'm logged in but nuked at Time Warner.68.175.68.54 02:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done - Problem fixed. You had a blacklisted link in your sandbox (http:// www.suite101.com). See what I did to fix it. You will need to remove that reference and find a different one, and or request that that particular page of www.suite101.com be permitted (see the english whitelist. (I would try to find a different reference, but the choice is up to you). Eagle 101 04:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

blog dot myspace dot com

This came up in a recent talk thread on WP:RS, apparently this being blacklisted prevents linking to official company / product blogs which would otherwise be acceptable as primary sources. Is this url actually being used for spam, or is the blacklist being (inappropriately IMO, as it's the spam blacklist not the WP:V blacklist) used to enforce an interpretation of WP:RS? --Random832 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC) The edit summary says "requested by Jimbo" but there is no link to the request in the log. --Random832 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This has already been talked over here. If you want to revive the disucssion, please do so in the correct section (items to be removed from the blacklist) Cheers! Eagle 101 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Dead external links/404/s

Spam filter won't let me update en:Susan Steinberg to en:Susan Steinberg (author) afterpage move. Jerry lavoie 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm assuming en right? If its becuase of a link, just remove the offending link, and it will all work just fine. Eagle 101 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
That pages appears to be editable as of a few mins ago. xaosflux Talk 05:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The problem was not on the Susan Steinberg article, it was the 404 maintenance page listed in this section header. I fixed it by trial and error. The spam block does not offer any assitance in finding the blacklisted link at all, and there were hundreds and hundreds of links on the page..... (it is a maintenance collection of external links that come up with 404 error)... So I used half-splitting and trial and error to isolate it... I had hoped there was an easier way (IE: a log or something) that would have made that easier. B ut it is okay now. Thanks. Jerry lavoie 22:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

typo?

Is bkuso\.cc a typo on the blacklist? maybe suppose to be \bkuso\.cc? or just no b infront of it? (the site is kuso\.cc) --Versageek 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I fixed it based on the fact that it is a typo. Eagle 101 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

WT?

Can someone explain to me why I am being blocked by the spam filter from reverting simple vandalisms at en:Ottoman Empire [49]? For which web-site? And which of the web-sites there is "spam"?? What is the criteria for inclusion in this list? If anyone can add any link they like, it is nothing but an invitation for disruption, right? If possible, it would be nice if someone can look into this soon since the vandalism is still there... Baristarim 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It has been fixed, someone spammed (see here) the following link "simone-numismatica-e-storia.blogspot.com/2007/02/una-piccola-moneta-racconta.html". This link was spammed on multiple wikis, (see report here). The only way to stop it was for a meta admin to blacklist the link, thereby making it impossible to save pages with that link in it. This stops the spamming, but it also has the side effect of preventing page saves. The criteria for being added to the list is mainly unmanageable spam, that can't be handled with normal admin tools. This includes cross wiki spam, which is exatly what happened with that link. I hope I have made this clearer for you, Cheers! Eagle 101 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Referral Profiteering

Please consider a list of referral affiliate syntax to filter/substitute. The idea is to prevent people adding links to articles which they profit from. Typically this would mean linking to a relevant book on amazon instead of an isbn number. Spiral Staircase 18:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any ideas are welcome ;) Eagle 101 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the less knowledgeable amongst us please explain what is meant by a "list of referral affiliate syntax to filter/substitute". I guess that it is something to do with links to book web sites. At present can a book that is relevant to an artcile include a link to the publisher's web site that gives more details about the contents of the book, which would be useful, or to online books retailer's sites for that book such as those on Amazon ? --XX7 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Slight trouble

I'm having a problem on the reverting of the Dodge Hornet article at the english wikipedia (I am The Helper S there), it won't let me delete the unessecary caption next to the first external link, can somebody fix this? I want it fixed because I can't edit from the page....and the caption is still there. 71.165.145.146 03:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removed a blacklisted URL, should work now. Thank you. --.anaconda 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Problem with overflow

I am having problem editing as the spam blacklist prevents me from adding the following code: "overflow: auto; height:". Can anyone help. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 17:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

See bug #8829. "height: 1; overflow: auto" works. --.anaconda 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=531931"