Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by 122.169.141.164 (talk) at 19:12, 27 May 2007 (→‎tutorialspoint.com). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 17 years ago by A. B. in topic Proposed removals
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. There is also a more aggressive way to block spamming trough direct use of $wgSpamRegex. Only developers can make changes to $wgSpamRegex, and its use is to be avoided whenever possible.

For more information on what the spam blacklist is for, and the processes used here, please see Spam blacklist/About.

Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, 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. In addition to that, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. Other discussions related to this last, but that are not a problem with a particular link please see, Spam blacklist policy discussion.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

snippet for logging: {{/request|590406#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, please do a search for the url (link) in question with this Archive Search tool.

Worthy of note: en:Wikipedia:Grief

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 17 years ago30 comments12 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.


*.orkut.com/Community.aspx?* and *.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?*

A really large amount of users at Portuguese Wikipedia persists to insert spam links to yours on communities from orkut. This may stop it without block the entire orkut (like personal profiles from orkut at userpages). Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 555 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, before I blacklist something like this (that may get a bunch of people upset), lets have a bit of discussion if this is a good idea or not... I welcome any input. Eagle 101 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend blacklisting and selective whitelisting Naconkantari 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
In Portuguese Wikipedia these links are prohibited by community policy. Porantim 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

universe-of-mp3.info

  • shlomif.wikiplanet.com/mediawiki/index.php/Mediawiki/index.php

Or just google universe-of-mp3.info to find hundreds.

I would like diffs of spam insertions please. I would find a ton of hits for other sites such as google books, and thats not spam. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request from Russian Wikipedia - gay.ru

Could you please add site gay.ru to the black list of spam, as someone continues to add links to that website in the articles on ru.wikipedia.org. That site advertises pornography, gay prostituion services [17],[18], and gay sex shop[19],[20] which are illegal under Russian penal code [21], and can cause legal problems for Russian section of Wikipedia (translation of the text of this law from Russian to English can be done at babelfish online translation). Thank you.--Ram2006 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you have evidence of actual spam problems? Is someone actively inserting this? Has ordinary admin tools failed to prevent multiple accounts from adding this link? (IE, blocks with autoblock left on, small range blocks for a short time etc). —— Eagle101 Need help? 10:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

philosopedia.org

Many links, almost all added by site owner. Sanity check, please. See [22].

  1. en: 71, [61 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * A. J. Carlson
   * Aenesidemus
   * Albert Schweitzer
   * Alfred Ayer
   * Algernon Charles Swinburne
   * All Souls Church, Unitarian
   * Amy Clampitt
   * Archie J. Bahm
   * Archie Randolph Ammons
   * Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
   * Baker Brownell
   * Bertrand Russell
   * Brand Blanshard
   * Cesare Cremonini (philosopher)
   * Charles Francis Potter
   * Conrad Aiken
   * Corliss Lamont
   * David Amram
   * De Soto, Iowa
   * DeRobigne Mortimer Bennett
   * Donald S. Harrington
   * E. E. Cummings
   * Emily Hahn
   * Faith Baldwin
   * Felix Adler (Society for Ethical Culture)
   * Frederick May Eliot
   * Geoffrey Bruun
   * George Boas
   * George Burns
   * H. J. Blackham
   * Harriette Simpson Arnow
   * Heinz Ansbacher
   * Hugh Hefner
   * Jack Beeson
   * Joseph Campbell
   * Joseph Hilbe
   * Joseph L. Blau
   * Joseph Warren Beach
   * Joseph Wood Krutch
   * Joyce Cary
   * Kay Boyle
   * Kenneth Burke
   * Louis Appignani
   * Louis Cornish
   * Max Lerner
   * Mike Reiss
   * Minburn, Iowa
   * Newton Arvin
   * Pat Tillman
   * Paul Edwards (philosopher)
   * Richard Kostelanetz
   * Rob Buckman
   * Robert Adamson (philosopher)
   * Robert Frost
   * Roger Nash Baldwin
   * Roy Wood Sellars
   * Rudolf Carnap
   * Rudolf Dreikurs
   * Ruth Millikan
   * Van Meter Ames
   * William Heard Kilpatrick
   * Image:Dr Robert Buckman.jpg
   * Talk:Alan Cumming
   * Talk:Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
   * Talk:Carl Sagan
   * Talk:Leo Tolstoy
   * User:Shmitra/photopermission
   * User:WASmith
   * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
   * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Belk
   * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 4
  1. de: 2, [2 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Paul Edwards
   * William Stewart Ross
  1. ja: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * アルベルト・シュバイツァー
  1. pt: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Molly Ivins
  1. zh: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * 伯特兰·罗素
  1. fi: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Brand Blanshard
  1. no: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Algernon Swinburne
  1. tr: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Bertrand Russell
  1. da: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Anarkister
  1. el: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Άλμπερτ Σβάιτσερ

JzG 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds right to me, if you need help doing the logging by all means ping me —— Eagle101 Need help? 10:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Though if you are going to blacklist something like this and there is no evidence of actual diffs of an account spamming the link, I would suggest that you remove the site yourself from the afflicted wikis. As you know we only tend to blacklist stuff that there is a documented case of abuse. Those links could have been inserted legitimately for all I know. (google cache has a ton of links but it is not spam) —— Eagle101 Need help? 10:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

multiple links

these links keep getting put into Art Bell, George Noory, and Coast to Coast AM articles (usually by unregistered IP users, just take a look at the history for the articles) ... most of these links are forums or blogs or networking websites ... i tried my best to find examples of them being removed from the articles (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • nighthawkzone.com
  • latenightforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=213
  • fantasticforum.com/1res/index.php
  • imaginativeworlds.com/forum/portal.php
  • myspace.com/c2cam
  • theusofe.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=3906d822105041d1491f07d0502d87b9
  • z8.invisionfree.com/Conspiratards/index.php?act=idx
  • groups.myspace.com/coasttocoastlistener
  • republicanoperative.com/blog/george-noory-has-got-no-freakin-clue.htm
I've protected both articles for 1 week, come back and post in this section if after a week it keeps up. —— Eagle101 Need help? 10:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

skimall.net

  • tellurideofficialguide.org
  • skimall.net
These are both the same. Skimall.net links were removed for a long time by several editors, & continually replaced by the same spammer. They have recently created "tellurideofficialguide.org" in an apparent attempt to appear more (at all) legitimate. A userblock &/or IPblock is inefective, as they use a dynamic IP (every time they log onto their DSL they get a different IP). Their only interest in adding this content is personal gain (advertising/pageranking). They continually claim that their "visitor's guide" (blog) is the "official" Telluride Visitor's Guide", putting theirs above other's, &/or just replacing other's with theirs. Please, block these URLs...
as User:65.101.220.144
as User:TellurideAdmin
as User:4.228.39.205
as User:4.228.39.205
as User:4.228.39.205
as User:4.228.39.205
[43]
as User:4.228.123.245
as User:68.4.184.89
User:4.228.81.63 moving link above others
as User:4.228.39.106
as User:85.240.214.181
as User:4.228.39.114
as User:4.227.199.181
as User:4.227.199.181
as User:4.227.199.181
as uSER:4.228.123.62
as User:4.228.123.249
[44]
[45]
as User:4.228.123.38
And the list goes on...
Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 12:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

myspace.com

Since blog.myspace.com is blocked, myspace.com should be blocked too. Otherwise it is an access door to the blog subdomain there. en:Rjgodoy 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done. See en:WP:POINT. JzG 21:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

scpanel.com

scpanel.net was previously blacklisted [46]. Now scpanel.COM has been added as spam, which points to the same website. Only one entry so far ([47]), but if left unblocked I imagine we'll see the same pattern of regular spamming of the unblocked link.

Done looks like a website to get around the spam blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 12:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

datasheet4u.com mirrors

Anonymous Korean spammer keeps returning to en:Datasheet using different IPs and different domain names for the already blacklisted site datasheet4u.com. Mirrors spotted so far include:

  • datasheet4u.net
  • datasheet4u.co.kr
  • datasheet.co.kr
  • datasheet.in
  • datasheets.in

WHOIS confirms that the above domains belong to Young-Su Kim, the owner of datasheet4u.com. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will semi-protect datasheet and see if that fixes the problem. —— Eagle101 Need help? 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I highly suggest blacklisting. He's been at it since April 24, 2006. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily for May 2007

Wayne has returned with more bizarre domain redirects, which will eventually be redirected to his personal Myspace if left on Wikipedia long enough.

  • newslimited.org
  • wesmannion.Com
  • ziggyswitkowski.com

--  Netsnipe  ►  04:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - any reason why some of his links are not on the blacklist (that are known on the long term abuse page?) —— Eagle101 Need help? 12:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Media exposure. He was pressured into handing back domains related to en:Bindi Irwin and Australian Liberal Party politicians. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

cafepress.com

A bit obvious, really. As of now there are many many links to cafepress on multiple projects: [48]. None of them is ever going to be anything other than an advertisement; there is no conceivable encyclopaedic use for links to cafepress, other than to the home page itself in articles on cafepress. JzG 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Were they all inserted by the same IP? If not then it might be legit. A trick to try would be to try removing the links from say... the english wiki, and see if anyone cries foul. If someone does, then it might have merit. Who knows... —— Eagle101 Need help? 11:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I deleted a bunch of cafepress.com spam earlier this year and gave out warnings. Sounds like they had little effect. --A. B. (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC) My mistake: I was confusing this with another domain. --A. B. (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've deleted cafepress spam in the past, it occasionally gets spammed to multiple articles by a single user, but more often, it's a COI issue.. where a user has created a cafepress store with items related to a single, specific topic.. and they add the store link to a single article. The link is intended to promote a product and adds no encyclopedic value. It's highly unlikely that any cafepress link ever will add encyclopedic value to any article except the one that is about cafepress.com. That said, given the shared nature of the meta blacklist, and the ability to blacklist individual cafepress/storename urls as necessary.. I'm not sure that adding all of cafepress.com to blacklist is a great idea. --Versageek 18:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

hoodiagordoniiplus.com

Repeatedly added to various articles on English Wikipedia by changing (but related) IP adresses over the course of several months. Here a few of the many examples: [49], [50], [51], [52]. Edgar181 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 17 years ago50 comments21 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements.


antu.com

Fenerbahce sport club official supporter site. --Antispam 12:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please post in the correct section. Naconkantari 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Request is here: [53]. I don't find any reference to this "official fansite" on www.fenerbahce.org, which claims to be the official site - is there any evidence of this claim? JzG 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done, requester seems to have lost interest. JzG 13:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

ruswar.com

ruswar.com — is not spam!--87.118.102.154 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any other reason? Spam in this case is not a subject, but rather a verb. Things go on this list because the site owner attempted to promote his own site across foundation sites. As I did the original blacklisting, someone else can look into this, but I recommend against blacklisting. If there is a specific use of the site use deeplinking (ie ruswar.com/something). You can request that specific pages be allowed vie local whitelisting. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The content is war photography which would fit perfectly on the war photography site. But perhaps local blacklisting would be a good idea, if there's something specific there isn't okay.Isakk 09:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

tutorialspoint.com

Just found that tutorialspoint.com got blacklisted because I had added many links from this site to wiki. I was not aware if this could cause a problem for this site. I'm not owner of this sit, yeah I have gone throug few tutorials available on this site and I was impressed so I had added them on WIKI. I appologize for my mistake and request you not to blacklist this site because of me. I'm not sure if its owner know about it or not but I can make sure that I will refrain from adding any further link.

Now its upto you what decision you take. Again sorry for my mistakes. S.S.

--

I have found this site very informative for all software developers. The tutorials available on this sites are really very simple, clear and easy to understand. This site would work great for freshers ( new in software industry ) to understand the latest technology and to cope up with the market.
I dont think this site should be blacklisted. So I also recommend to move this site out of blacklist.
Thanks,

Paul

I agree, this is not a site which should be blacklisted...Just wondering why it happend so. I would alos recommend remove this site from blacklist if it has been put in blacklist because of some unintentional mistakes done by someone.

amit Hi,

I'm so thankful to all the guys recommending tutorialspoint for whitelist. I already had requested to wiki admin and I had stated that I did not add all the links which are assumed to be spaming. Now whoever had added those links agreed on his/her mistake and other people also find that this site should not be blacklisted. So I again request to Admin that tutorialspoint should be removed from black list.

Mohtashim for TutorialsPoint.com

Hi JzG!

I cross checked this report, there are two IP addresses who submitted these link (i) 206.126.170.20 (ii) 59.144.74.128. Out of these IP addresses, first one belongs to Cincinnati, USA and another belongs to Chennai, INDIA. Both are not the owner of this site. In above recommendation one person accepted his/her mistake so may be this is one of them who did this mistake.

I belong to Andhra Pradesh, INDIA and I maintain my site from this place only. Further, I would request you to go to my site and you will find its completely educational site and useful for IT beginners. So my request is to remove this site once from black list and I hope and expect from my site visitors they would not repeat this mistake.

Best Regards Mohtashim for TutorialsPoint.com

  • It doesn't actually matter who spams a site, if it is spammed. And it must be said that requests from site owners based on their own assertions of usefulness are not exceptionally persuasive. JzG 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi JzG! Then it means my site would never be borough up back to white list ? What's solution now. I should not be blacklisted because of others. Same time when other people are recommending then it should have some consideration. When I checked your given report link then I find that w3school also has put a link on an dutch article, I have seen many other links from this site to many other wiki pages with different languages. You can check it.

I'm not sure if this comes under cross spamming according to WIKI spam policy but w3schools is never been blacklisted and my site was blacklisted because someone had added one link somewhere. Rule should be same for all and there should not be any partiality from a WIKI Admin.

I'm looking for a fair judgment from your side. So please let me know the solution to come out of blacklist.

Best Regards Mohtashim

wannasurf.com

Site was added on 10. January because someone added it and blueplanetsurfmaps.com to many surfing pages. I think it's one of the best databases for surf spots. Please remove it from the blacklist, if it's added again to many pages, we can blacklist it for good. --85.197.25.18 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I support your request. --213.150.1.85 06:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

fremderfreiheitsschacht.de

Please give me at least one reason why this is listed. The page has a lot of information about the de:Wandergeselle and their traditions. Thank you. --84.177.91.13 11:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) = de:Benutzer:PengReply

I'm going to refer you to this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cais-soas.com

  • from their website, "The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS), established in 1998 by Shapour Suren-Pahlav and Oric Basirov (Department of Art and Archaeology), under the name of "Ancient Iranian Civilization at the School of Oriental and African Studies" (AIC at SOAS) and later changed to "The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies" (CAIS at SOAS) of the University of London, to act as a forum for the exchange of information about the art, archaeology, culture and civilization of Iranian peoples. CAIS no longer has any affiliation with SOAS."

... May or may not be neutral, but definitely not spam: why are they on the list? Found because there are informative links about archaeology etc on the en:Persepolis page; it'd be a shame to remove them. -- phoebe 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's also used a lot on fr, by many different people (no spam attempt or anything, just a convenient source). Is there any legal issue here? GL 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • additional discussion on this domain:

Accidently blocked by \bcais-soas\.com  ?

This is the Circle of Ancient Iranian Website (CAIS). It should not be blocked. I think its blocking is being triggered by this entry in the list: \bcais-soas\.com Can someone fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.81.252.14 (talk • contribs) .

Please read this discussion on en.wikipedia prior to removing this domain from the blacklist, there were some specific issues that caused it to be blacklisted. --Versageek 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

ishipress.com/royalfam

ishipress.com was added last August by Naconkantari based on this. I don't know whether the reason for the general blacklisting is valid, but Sam Sloan seems to be the maintainer of a genealogy tree of European royal families ( www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg01.htm ) which definitely should not be blacklisted. --Tgr 08:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

refspace.com

I don't know why this got blacklisted. It's a good site for quotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch linked to that site, which prevented any edits from working. 68.237.195.220 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • well, you deleted the link. my question was why it was blacklisted. and from what you posted, it's because a user spammed wikipedia with that link some time ago.

racetotheright.com

i am re-adding this, as the issue has not been resolved, see below racetotheright.com is not spam. nor, as Raul654 claims[56] is it an "Attack Page." there is no promotion of this site by the owner, or any members of it on wiki foundation sites.--Zeeboid 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

(from below)

I have blacklisted this site per [57] Raul654 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Racetotheright.com is not a spam site. I would like to request that this is added inapproperatly, and have it removed. it does not meet the qualifications of a spam site, not even by a longshot. The issue that was braught up by this site is it contains a place where users can log in and discuss wikipedia rule infractions.--Zeeboid 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Who can assist with this, or where do I need to go to get this corrected?--Zeeboid 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It has been blacklisted not for spamming, but because it's an attack site (focusing on individuals who edit primarily on global warming articles) and a staging ground for POV editors bent on inserting their bias into our global warming-related articles. Raul654 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs? your opinion of what an attack site is was never backed up at that refrence you gave[58] as no one was able to answer the question "What do you consider an attack page." I fear this is simply a retalitory attack when attempts to ban others failed. the site isn't even mine, yet you claim it is[59] If you are inaccurate there, claiming improper ownership of a website, then I submit you do not know enough wether or not it is an "Attack Page" it blacklist it here. Could you please assist me in knowing the deffinition of an attack page, so we can work from there, becasue I am under the understanding currently, that it is not an attack page.--Zeeboid 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
This has to be right. We shouldn't list sites which launch personal attacks on WP editors. --AndrewCates 08:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
There are no personal attacks at that site though. Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs?--Zeeboid 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
This needs to be resolved soon, as it is not allowing me form editing my talk page.--Zeeboid 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
This issue appears to have been resolved, following removal of a link form your talk page. I see no reason why this request cannot now be closed. JzG 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
{{notdone}} —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Race to the right.com is not a spam site.it doe snot qualify as a spam site in any way, and should not be on this list. there are no personal attacks on the site. No one has answered the question I asked above. "is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs?" Could someone explain to me how it fits otherwise? According to the guidelines, Racetotheright.com is not a spam site

Guidelines:

  1. - Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam.

--Zeeboid 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll leave it up to another meta sysop. —— Eagle101 Need help? 12:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done - the stated reasons for delisting are wikilawyering, I think, there is no evidence that the site has any merit as a source and it undoubtedly has been linked inappropriately, and contains or has contained content we simply don't need linked from Wikipedia. JzG 20:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me? How does tha fit the blacklist qualifications? Could you show me where sites can be added to a wikipedia blacklist for "Wikilawyering"? If the spam site is for, as it says Only blacklisting for widespread, unmanageable spam, then Racetotheright.com does not qualify by any means. If someone wants to try to add it as an attack site, then i want to know, as has not been answered for me by anyone thus far, what your deffinitino of an "attack site" is and how racetotheright.com qualifies. You can clearly go to racetotheright.com and see what it is and what it isnt. Does anyone have any examples of spam sent from this site? Anything?
In your opinion the site has no merrit, but we all have opinions, and opinions are often not factual. If I understand correctly, JzG:
Racetotheright.com is being added to the wiki Spam Blacklist because you don't think "the site has any merit as a source and you believe it "has contained content we simply don't need linked from Wikipedia"

Is that accurate? Is that what the Spam Blacklist is for?--Zeeboid 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you give me an article that this site would be useful in? Right now this site is more of a problem then a help for foundation projects. —— Eagle101 Need help? 10:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Two questions: 1. Where is there a requirement that a site has to be 'useful' in an article to remain off of the Black list? 2. What problem is the website causing? I refrenced above it being added as an attack page, of which is still not spam, but there are no attack pages on the site anyway. Your request for "an article that this site would be useful in" is unanswerable. your opinion of what "useful" could verry from mine or someone elses, but the fact that it does not allow the addation of this site on talk pages should be enough. as many many wiki editors link to sites for things they do, in my case, assist with a radio show. keeping me from putting this on my talk page, becasue of a false claim that this site sends out "widespread, unmanageable spam" is completly false. Perhaps If anyone can find an attack page on the site, then it could be argued why an attack page counts or does not count as Spam (sends widespread, unmanageable spam) site.--Zeeboid 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is it incorrect to conclude that if sites are only to be blacklisted "for widespread, unmanageable spam."... and this site does not send out any spam, then it should not be blacklisted?--Zeeboid 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not all links on this list are on here because of spam. Thats the reason why 90% of the links are on here, but we do blacklist other non-spam links simply for being disruptive. Take encyclopediadrmatica, or the whole deathcamps and death-camps deal. If there is no links that are actually useful on any of our foundation sites (ie, wikisource, wikibooks, wikipedia, wikinews, ect), why should we allow it if its only causing problems? —— Eagle101 Need help? 12:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Zeeboid, what you are doing here is simply wikilawyering. All Wikimedia Foundation projects run, fundamentally, on Clue, not on hard-and-fast rules. Sure, we have a rule that says this, generally, is what X feature is for, but there is certainly nothing to stop any feature being used to prevent an abuse of the project - the main regex filter has been used in the past to prevent mass posting of certain text; there's no policy that says it can be, but that's what happens, because we're not in the legal business, we're trying to run a series of projects with minimum fuss and not enough admins. The spam blacklist exists primarily to prevent widespread unmanageable spam, but there are several sites that have been added to stop other specific problems, including deliberate, calculated privacy violations, linking to attack pages and the like. The rule exists in part to dissuade people from asking for blacklisting to fix narrow or easily-contained issues, problems that can be managed by semiprotection, for example, or by banning a spammer. So, to reiterate the perfectly reasonable question asked above: where do you think links to this site, which has previously caused a problem, would be appropriate? Are there specific pages you think would be appropriate? JzG 12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

MySpace Blogs

I think a blacklist prevented me from linking my wikipedia user page to my myspace blog? Myspace now has too significant a share of the blogosphere I think to maintain that. (Warning, User has bias) Mathiastck 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It could be done in a less blanket manner. There's nothing wrong with with WP users linking to their own blogs on their own userpages. I agree halfheartedly with preventing MySpace links in articles. The problem with it is that many notable bands and other people have migrated to MySpace for their official web sites. The issue isn't that very few blogs can qualify as sources at all (it is certainly true that very, very few blogs are generally reliable sources); it is that virtually all blogs are not reliable sources for much of anything — but the inverse of course is that any blog authored by someone notable, MySpace-based or not, can be a reliable source, for something about that notable party that isn't subject to p.o.v.-pushing under W:WP:COI (e.g., the simple fact of the upcoming release date of a notable band's album can be reliably sourced from their official website, be it blog-based or MySpace-based, or not). Blogs are simply a publication format, like any other. Yeah, I know this is not the venue for a deep discussion of this, but I find the "ban blogs from Wikipedia!" meme rather silly and irritating. That said, MySpace itself had become a problem with regard to overuse of links to it in articles; perhaps it could be addressed at W:WP:EL in some way instead of with such a broad blacklisting. It ought to be appropriate, under WP:EL, to use official websites, blogs, etc., including MySpace, to source facts that can be reliably sourced by them, and to use them on user pages, and not to use them for anything else at all. (End rant). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

ezinearticles.com

This is a legit site of independently-authored and often well-researched articles on various topics, which can (but like anything else are not always) useful as cited sources. Never seen any evidence they are spammers at all and doing a search on the site name does not reveal enough articles to suggest a massive campaign of linkspamming, though I imagine that one or two bad WP editors who have written questionable articles over there could be linkspamming them on a limited basis; such behaviour should be dealt with at W:WP:AIV, not by blacklisting the entire site. W:Cue sport and W:William A. Spinks cannot be edited without removing two of their references (both articles' correction of false information about billiard chalk from an episode of CSI cannot be fully sourced without links to ezinearticles.com working here; while the correct information is probably available from other than the good ezinearticle cited, a different, bad ezinearticle was itself the source of CSI`s error, and is cited as such.) I have commented out the reference citations to ezinarticles.com at W:Cue sport, which is frequently edited, but this affects quite a number of other articles, none of which can be edited without similar hijinks, which many editors won't understand. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at:
  1. en:User talk:150.216.133.196
  2. en:User talk:207.97.160.53
  3. en:User talk:221.19.108.118
  4. en:User talk:221.38.194.8
  5. en:User talk:4.252.161.202
  6. en:User talk:58.7.252.46
  7. en:User talk:60.227.65.62
  8. en:User talk:60.227.69.147
  9. en:User talk:67.161.178.47
  10. en:User talk:67.172.117.142
  11. en:User talk:67.182.187.220
  12. en:User talk:69.159.240.244
  13. en:User talk:86.4.122.201
  14. en:User talk:Acecomp
  15. en:User talk:Amahdigital
  16. en:User talk:Atiq321
  17. en:User talk:BostonRed
  18. en:User talk:BreakdownCover
  19. en:User talk:Ebooks
  20. en:User talk:Egleason
  21. en:User talk:Fan-1967/Archive7
  22. en:User talk:Kburton
  23. en:User talk:Kempler Video
  24. en:User talk:Lesimo2
  25. en:User talk:Rtussey
  26. en:User talk:Treacle07
  27. en:User talk:V9designbuild.com
  28. en:User talk:Wisteriapress
Where you see a copyright violation cited on a talk page, in most cases, it's been the ezinearticles.com contributor submitting the same text from his article, then linking back to it.
Sample cross-wiki spamming:
Previous discussions:
While I did not propose blacklisting, I think it's probably a good idea. As an alternative, I've tried to pursue a more careful strategy of evaluating ezinearticles.com links and articles one-by-one and removing "surgically" over the last several months. In my experience, we're accumulating them faster than I've been able to delete them this way. Furthermore, I've read perhaps 75 to 100 of these articles and not found one that met our requirements as a reliable source. There is no editorial supervision of article quality. If you research the company, you'll find that this is all about search engine marketing (see en:User talk:V9designbuild.com). The article writer gets a link with some "Google-love" (an increase in page rank). Ezinearticles.com gets Google ad revenue. Readers get something that anyone could have submitted (including your 10-yar old or the used car salesman down the street).
--A. B. (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

gerodot.ru

It is not completely understandable, why during the arrangement of reference to our site, reveals communication about SPAM. Our site is dedicated to history, and there cannot be SPAM.

Not done err... what do you mean? I was able to add the link here. I don't think this url is even on the blacklist. Please check, thanks. —— Eagle101 Need help? 11:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments7 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).


700 URL redirection links to clean up

As a matter of policy, domains such as tinyurl.com are routinely blacklisted since they not only can be used innocently as URL shorteners but also as a means of bypassing our spam blacklist. I keep the en:URL redirection article on my watchlist since someone adds another site to the external links section every week or two that I list for blacklisting. These additions are not necessarily spam -- some folks post them just to be helpful.

Today we had an editor add several links that, when linksearched across 57 Wikipedias, present major cleanup challenges:[60]
1. http://fd.tc

  • no links

2. freedomain.co.nr

  • 610 links

3. surl.co.uk:

  • no links

Mindless blacklisting will create chaos across hundreds of gridlocked articles so the links need to be cleaned up for each domain before blacklisting. Mindless link deletion in turn will delete many useful links and references since most probably were added in good faith by editors using these domains for short URLs. The right thing to do is to find and substitute the actual site link for the redirect URL.

As each domain is cleaned up, I suggest listing it in the Proposed additions section above. --A. B. (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedias with .co.nr links to be removed

Wikipedias with .co.nr links to be removed:

Links remaining: '497
Last updated: --A. B. (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

co.nr links removed from mainspace on these Wikipedias

co.nr links removed from mainspace on these Wikipedias:

Last updated: --A. B. (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

cais-soas.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red&action=submit This discussion moved to here, please continue discussion there. --Versageek 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous IP claims Workforall think tank repudiates workforall.net domain and spamming

See this note posted on en:user:BozMo's talk page:

Public workforall.net registration record:

owner-contact: P-MJG120
owner-organization: P. Vreymans
owner-fname: MFPH
owner-lname: Geurts
owner-city: Wingene
owner-zip: 8750
owner-country: BE

Public workforall.org registration record:

Registrant Name:Eric Verhulst
Registrant Organization:Lancelot research nv
Registrant City:Leuven
Registrant Postal Code:be-b3010
Registrant Country:BE

--A. B. (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also see this disclaimer posted on workforall.org:
WorkForAll as an independent thinktank maintains the website www.workforall.org
WorkForAll.org has nothing to do with workforall.net...
--A. B. (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

workforall

I understand why this site was blacklisted and am not requesting to have it lifted as this link was littered throughout Wikipedia. However, I do actually have a legit use for it as a reference but can not add it. I was trying to undo this change. Morphh 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please request local whitelisting of that specific page of that site. Thanks. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.forum.bordosov.net

I only saw it once, but it seems to be placed by a vandal bot (typical spam bot lemma: be:W/w/index.php). Does the blacklist also work if someone just puts "www.forum.bordosov.net" on a page (thus without http://)? (If yes, I would propose to list that one and to move this section to the requests above.) --Thogo (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.the-planets.com

Not in the list but blocked. Why? Consequently, I cannot edit http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabrina_Ferilli --125.24.142.66 01:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (user:media_lib)Reply

Not a brilliant site, but doesn't look like spam.--Poetlister 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Reference:
--A. B. (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

30 webalias.com redirect sites to cleanup and blacklist

See http:// webalias.com. As each of these domains are cleaned up, please note this fact below, then list the domain in "proposed additions" above.

--A. B. (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A. B. If you have finished these, and they are on the blacklist, go ahead and put a {{done}} template on here, so that the bot may archive this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Article on Persia

In the further reading section of this article, I endeavoured to link the name of one of the authors, Tom Holland, to his own Wikipedia by inserting the code Tom Holland, but I was told that this was a black-listed link. Clearly this seems to be an error.

TanburSociety.com

Why has this site been placed on the black-list? It is a non profit society devoted to preserving the history of one of the oldest stringed instrument in the world. How do we remove it from the black list? We think somebody is playing games. How do we fix the problem?

I'm not sure that I agree with everything that the site says, but it seems an innocuous link.--Poetlister 14:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=590406"