Jump to content

Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by A. B. (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 15 October 2007 (→‎Gamedogs.org: background history). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 16 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 through direct use of $wgSpamRegex. Only developers can make changes to $wgSpamRegex, and its use is to be avoided whenever possible.

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

Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, or Troubleshooting and problems, read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In addition to that, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. Other discussions related to this last, but that are not a problem with a particular link please see, Spam blacklist policy discussion.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

snippet for logging: {{/request|709982#section_name}}

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

Spam that is only affecting a single project should go to that project's local blacklist, if available: ENWP

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments9 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.


blpurl.com

blpurl.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)blpurl.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

URL shortener. 58.170.147.241 08:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

cmsimple.com.br

cmsimple.com.br

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)cmsimple.com.br
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

Spammed cross-wiki, pure spam. Output from all-wiki spamsearch tool, after links from en removed: 

Results for en.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam URL: http://spam.cmsimple.com.br
Results for ja.wikipedia.org...
 Page: SITE PUBLIS URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br/
 Page: ジョン・バロウマン  URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
Results for sv.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Webbdesign URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
 Page: PageRank URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
Results for es.wikipedia.org...
 Page: PageRank URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
Results for pt.wikipedia.org...
 Page: CMSimple URL: http://www.cmsimple.com.br
Spammers

See also en:WT:WPSPAM#cmsimple.com.br. 58.167.228.150 13:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done --Herby talk thyme 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I notice that our spammer[1] just tried to delete this entry, so I went and looked a little closer at this domain. Here's a related domain with the same Google Adsense ID and ownership -- I suggest blacklisting this domain too:

dokuwiki.com.br

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)dokuwiki.com.br
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)
Google Adsense ID: 3721620839560070
Accounts adding this second link:
--A. B. (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Our spammer just vandalized this section again.[2][3]
I wonder if we should blacklist this third related domain as well? Hasn't been spammed that I can see but it shares the same registration contact data:

aitengenharia.com.br

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)aitengenharia.com.br
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)
Others' thoughts?
--A. B. (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

\bdokuwiki\.com\.br\b is Done. For now I'm going with "good faith" on the one that hasn't spammed BUT if there are any links seen I'll happily review that --Herby talk thyme 10:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

sudpontino.net

sudpontino.net

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)sudpontino.net
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)
spammers

Mathel 22:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Genericised url above, condensed spammer list. All wiki spamsearch results (after 4 links removed on en): 

Results for en.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
Results for de.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: Formia URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia
 Page: Minturno URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for ja.wikipedia.org...
 Page: カンポディメーレ URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: フォンディ URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: イトリ URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
 Page: レーノラ URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
 Page: ミントゥルノ URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for it.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: Gaeta URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/gaeta
 Page: Itri URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
 Page: Lenola URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
 Page: Minturno URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for nl.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: Minturno URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for pt.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: Formia URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia
 Page: Itri URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
 Page: Lenola URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
 Page: Minturno URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for pl.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
Results for ca.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
Results for vo.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: Formia URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia
 Page: Itri URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
 Page: Lenola URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
 Page: Minturno URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for br.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Formia URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia

Apparently you missed some spam on ja.wikipedia. Test wiki is down, so there could be more spam. 58.167.227.240 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done --Herby talk thyme 08:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

jordibusque.com

Not sure about this site. It just contains pictures (some of them quite nice to look at) but no further information. I removed them from some articles where there are equal pictures in the articles or/and at commons. But several IPs add them again each time after it was removed. Right now the link exists on about 130 pages on 32 wikipedia-projects (according to eagles linksearch tool): e.g. ru (4x), tr (3x), ca (9x), es (17x), fr (12x), ja (2x), .... -- 193.110.129.66 09:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am unsure too
A couple of the fr ones I checked the link is not relevant to the page however the site looks ok. Equally the links I checked on fr were placed a while ago and have not been removed by anyone. I can find no trace of this being reported/discussed on en wp (which I tend to expect). I would also be happier if a named user reported this so that I could check around. Not a "no" but more information/views would be good, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply


uarticles.blogspot.com

This site was blacklisted on en.wp's shadowbot/AntiSpamBot back in June. In the last few weeks, they've started to spam other language Wikipedias.. as shown in this report. --Versageek 15:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for that - Done --Herby talk thyme 15:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've cleaned the links from all those main space pages, with the exception of one on es.wp, where the page is semi-protected & my account is too new to edit. --Versageek 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just cleared that last link. --A. B. (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Accounts
Domains
  • adultcliks.com
  • av-videos.com
  • babecollector.com
  • baseballsexgames.com
  • celebrityinferno.com
  • eurohotbabes.com
  • fcnudes.com
  • kbabe.com
  • kbitches.com
  • kcastings.com
  • kerotic.com
  • kfetish.com
  • kfisting.com
  • klivecam.com
  • kpeeing.com
  • kporns.com
  • kscans-germany.com
  • kscans.com
  • kteam.info
  • mouthpee.net
  • puppetcams.com
  • r-back.com
  • sexmetaltoys.com
  • spammed previously by:
  • top-nude.com
  • vipbeauties.net
  • vipclash.com
  • watchmyexbabes.com
  • x-proxy.com
  • amazon.de/First-Class-Nudes-Marketa-Belonoha
Reference

--A. B. (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of no value Foundationwise, all Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

discusswelding.com

Numerous anonymous and new editors are repeatedly adding links to discusswelding.com on English Wikipedia articles en:welding, en:shielded metal arc welding, en:arc welding, and others. Users include:

The site itself is simply a forum with moderate traffic; nothing exceptional and not something that needs to be linked. Thanks! --Spangineerwp ws (háblame) 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the face of it this appears to be an en wp issue rather than a cross wiki one? If that is the case you might be better seeking local blacklisting here, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 16 years ago62 comments14 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements.

turkishweekly.net turkudostlari.net bturkish.at

I came here initially for the t issue above, which is solved now (it was blocking arama.hurriyet.com.tr). So, I should admit that I am not going to use these sites now. I hope that does not affect their removals.

  1. turkishweekly.net (usakgundem.com as well): a news journal (I don't know why it was ever blacklisted). It was first blacklisted by Dbl2010 (I think without a discussion), then he removed it when someone objected [4], and then he 'redid it with more detail' [5], which was blacklisting the Turkish version of the site. Weird. These were done after the discussions about blacklisting the Turkish chat sites. I agree they should be blacklisted but their existence does not imply blacklisting news journal websites. I think this should be removed from the blacklist
  2. turkudostlari.net: This website hosts among others a quite big and good archive of lyrics of "türkü"s (Turkish folk songs) with additional info about them (their origins, their 'tales', sourced). They also host non-copyrighted mp3's of some songs of contemporary musicians. The website was blacklisted on February 1st, b/c some guy added link to Edirne folk songs to Edirne on multiple wikis simultaneously.[6] I think it is time to remove the website from the blacklist. We can use it on many Turkish folk music related articles.
Because of this black-listing I can't add (actually restore) a link to the article fr:Türkü in the french Wikipedia, which is a pity since this site is one of the few serious sites on the subject. JX Bardant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.97.240.25 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 Oct 2007 (UTC)
Local whitelisting is always an option (on fr wp) although this is not closed yet. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
  1. bturkish.at: Apparently, this website does not exist [7]. There might be a spelling error.

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

On the subject of "bturkish" this is actually part of the regex used so the site blacklisted is turkish.at --Herby talk thyme 07:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow, this has taken quite a while (probably my mistake). Thanks for bturkish though, I should have noticed /b's there. On the issue of turkishweekly, I started to think that Dbl2010 banned it for some issues on Turkish Wikipedia (Vikipedi). I guess I should contact him, and ask for blacklisting it on Turkish wikipedia, not here. Turkudostlari should be removed from the blacklist. It is like banning Wikipedia for some vandals. Among other things it has biographies of at least 295 Turkish/Azeri folk musicians including Ali Ekber Çiçek, Arif Sağ, Aşık Veysel, Birol Topaloğlu, Bülbül Memedov, Çekiç Ali, Dadaloğlu, Daimi, Edip Akbayram, Emre Saltık, Ercişli Emrah, Erdal Erzincan, Erkan Oğur, Erol Parlak, Ferhat Tunç, Feyzullah Çınar, Gevheri, Grup Kızılırmak (let me stop here), ... many of which have articles on en wiki (possibly also other wikis), therwise they should be notable enough to have articles on en wiki. I am not familiar with the notability guidelines on other wikis. Denizz 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
It probably would be as well to contact Dbl2010. However a simple answer is to seek whitelisting of the site on en wp? --Herby talk thyme 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I already did contact Dbl2010 (User_talk:Dbl2010#Spam_blacklist), but I haven't got any response yet. Anyway, turkudostlari is not related to this. Can we unblock that one? I personally don't like the idea of keeping it blacklisted everywhere and whitelisting on en wiki. I would appreciate it very much if it is removed from the blacklist here. Also I attempted to use the website just now. Do you know how to quickly find in the talk page history how a website got blacklisted? I wanted to add something from ezine, but it is not that important, I am just wondering. Denizz 04:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand why you have an issue with an overall blacklisting and a local whitelisting? As to ezine the decision was taken here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Worldwidealbums.tk

The following discussion is closed.

This website was blacklisted, however, it gets its info from MEDIATRAFFIC.DE (official website of the United World Chart), and its minimal sales total (they get it by simply adding all the sales weeks of the albums from the MediaTraffic website, e.g., next week, they will add another 50k or so to Timberlake's album). It would be useful because, although Mediatraffic shows you the worldwide sales, they only show you "this week's" sales, so they don't show the TOTAL numbers. Especially useful for recently released albums, to show in the artist's discographies. They give the exact same numbers as mediatraffic, but they add them up for us. --- 72.142.234.18 23:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why hasn't anyone replied to my post yet? --- 72.142.234.18 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
See here for info on the blacklisting --Herby talk thyme 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

 Declined --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

aceshowbiz.com

The following discussion is closed.

The site, aceshowbiz.com, is currently blacklisted, but has information I have referenced that I cannot find elsewhere. The site does not appear to be a source of spam, so it should be removed from the blacklist. The specific URLs that I am siting in en:Jonas Brothers are aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography.html and aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography_2.html. --Scottalter 09:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Listed based on spamming last year according to this archive. Local whitelisting on en wp might be possible just for the pages you require --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

 Declined --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

idigbig.com

The following discussion is closed.

Radio Station WBIG-FM in Washington, DC uses idigbig.com as their website. I have tried to add it to the respective page, but due to the spam protection blacklist, I can't. According to what I have been told the the blacklisting admin got the regex wrong (the blacklisted site should be \bdigbig\.com). If idigbig.com could be added to the whitelist (and the correct URL added to the blacklist) I would appericate it. - Neutralhomer 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The official website appears to be www.wbig.com and is on the en wp page so why is the site you are trying to add relevant? --Herby talk thyme 08:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
That is the old website, which Clear Channel continues to use. idigbig.com is advertised online and on the air, not wbig.com. Prior to WBIG's switch from Big 100 (oldies format) to Big 100.3 (classic rock format/current), they switched URLs to the current idigbig.com. - Neutralhomer 20:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hum - you could just be right there! I've made the regex more precise which I think should mean that the radio site can be used. Could you let me know one way or the other - that way I get to learn! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, yup they added just fine :) Many thanks for your help, I do appericate it. Take Care and Enjoy Your Weekend...Neutralhomer 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

tutorialspoint.com

Hi Admin!

My site was blacklisted early in this year because of some unintentional spamming. Whoever added my site links to wikipedia was not aware if addition of these links will lead to a spamming otherwise it would have not happened so.

So I am requesting you please remove this site from blacklist. This is a very clean site and is build up purely for educational purpose. This site does not have anything to do commercially and many tutorials like Ruby on Rails, Six Sigma, WiFi, WiMAX are quite useful and they are not available anywhere on the net with this type of rich content. Now I can make sure that no further spamming would be generated for tutorialspoint.

I hope you will explore this site and if you find it useful then please remove it from blacklist. I'm again repeating whatever has happened in past I'm regretting a lot on that and would not be repeated.

Best Regards Mohtashim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tutorialspoint (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 Oct 2007 (UTC)

So far I can find at least two previous appeals both of which have been rejected (one here with quite a bit of discussion). I'll await other views for now --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
References:
  1. en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#tutorialspoint.com talentgroups.com amrood.com
  2. en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar#tutorialspoint.com
  3. en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#tutorialspoint.com talentgroups.com amrood.com
  4. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03#tutorialspoint.com
  5. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04#www.tutorialspoint.com
  6. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Removals: Not Done#tutorialspoint.com
  7. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Removals: Not Done#tutorialspoint
Domains:

tutorialspoint.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)tutorialspoint.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

talentgroups.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)talentgroups.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

amrood.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)amrood.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)
Google Adsense ID: 7133395778201029
--A. B. (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is interesting -- compare Refnses Data's W3Schools web site at w3schools.com and tutorialspoint.com.
Also this site-owner also owns an additional domain not previously identified:

change-images.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)change-images.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)
  • Google Adsense ID: 5399713820291299
--A. B. (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Most of the 700+ Wikimedia Foundation projects that use this Foundation blacklist have conflict of interest guidelines: if you own or are otherwise affiliated with a site, you are not supposed to add links to it. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
This blacklist is used by more than just our Wikimedia Foundation projects. All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have elected to incorporate our blacklist data in their own spam filtering. Each MediaWiki wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so; their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. --A. B. (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think, given the history of cross wiki spamming from this (unintentional seems an odd word in this context) and associated sites together with A. B. excellent summary above, there is little likelihood of this site proving valuable to foundation projects. Should an established editor find a need to place a link local whitelisting is always possible. I'll leave it open for a day or so just in case there are other relevant views --Herby talk thyme 07:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Herby! Here I used unintentional word because the time I had added links at wiki, I was totally new to wiki and was not aware of any policy related to wiki spam and I found the places and I had added links because I saw other links added there but till I realized this mistake it had become very late for which I regret till the date.

But now I'm making sure that no link will be added from my side because I understand all spam policies at wiki.

My site is having few common tutorial like HTML, XHTML which may not be useful for site visitors because we have plenty of stuff related to these subjects. But tutorials on EVM, Six Sigma, CMMI, Ruby on Rails, Makefile, WiMAX, Wi-Fi are rarely available on the net and I have written them using my 10 years of experience in telecom domain.

I'm again repeating that it was a mistake and I confess for that and give my commitment that it would not be repeated from my side. Apart from this you will find tutorialspoint to contribute valuable content for wiki and not any link.

If you still don’t trust me, then….really I don’t have other words to convince you except requesting you once again.

Best Regards Mohtashim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tutorialspoint (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 Oct 2007 (UTC)


Hi I would also recommend not to put this site in block list. I found this site pretty useful specially for PMP preparation and to understand CMMI and Six Sigma concepts. I liked their Earned Value Management tutorial as well.

Thanks R.A. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.129.187.15 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 Oct 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with trust at all but please review A. B.'s posting which to me explains things very well. To the anon IP, I am sure you found the site worthwhile however that does not make it a necessary site for Foundation projects, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tried to add Ruby on Rails link from Tutorials Point at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails but I found that this site is blacklisted. Their Ruby on Rails tutorial is really very useful and I could not find such material on any site. Currently given links at wikipedia are of no use. I won't say you should unblock this site or not but I would definitely recommend to have tutorialspoint.com/ruby-on-rails/index.htm in the link list.

John. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.234.250.71 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 8 Oct 2007 (UTC)

John, if an established editor (a named account, not an IP, with at least several hundred substantive edits) requests that page be whitelisted, then I suspect an admin would do this for that particular page. That section looked substantive based on what I saw of it. Whitelisting is done "locally" on a Wikipedia-by-Wikipedia basis. On en.wikipedia (the English Wikipedia), you can make your request at
For other Wikipedias, just substitute the appropriate language code (such as "fr" for French) for the "en":
--A. B. (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Herby/A.B! So conclusion is that my site would not be whitelisted. According to Herby its not usefull. Fine, May I ask two questions:

(1) If someone comes on wikipedia for he first time and finds that there are few links added at the bottom of each page and he adds his site link as well because he thinks this link will be useful for others , then how will you inform him if he has created a spam to add that link ?

(2) Don't you think there are thousands of links from commerial sites added at wikipedia even english sites are having links at other language's pages ?

If you have fair answer for these two question then I will think its fair to keep my site in blacklist because I had created spam....

Thanks Mohtashim webamster@tutorialspoint.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.169.143.102 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 12 Oct 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why people here read so selectively - I can see nowhere I have said that your site is not useful. The reverse is actually true, what I did question was whether is is necessary. If an established editor finds it is then it can be whitelisted where it is needed. Your first question would be better answered by a wikipedian. Your second I can answer - just because other links exist is no justification for keeping yours I'm afraid (although I have seen the argument from many site owners now). Links will get cleaned when folks get around to them. --Herby talk thyme 11:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry Herby if I have misinterpreted your statement. I really appreciate your reply and I'm more than happy to know that you find my site useful and moreover other people are recommending my site. I asked first question because same has happened with me I was not aware that my link addition will lead to spamming. I would suggest to have a mechanism that without proper registration people should not be allowed to make any modification on any page. In case there is any spam, at least we can warn to that guy before putting him in blacklist, which is not happening at the moment and I’m sufferer of that.

However, thanks for all attention and your time you have given to look into my case. I don’t mind now if my site is in blacklist. It’s a mere a matter of luck….otherwise people liked this site.

Best Regards Mohtashim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.169.162.75 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 Oct 2007 (UTC)

I think tutorialspoint.com is a clean website and its information are unique . It`s a perfect website for easy learning . Omid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.186.209.76 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 Oct 2007 (UTC)

currenttimeindia.com

The following discussion is closed.

Please check the discussion at the following link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Tossing_currenttimeindia.com_up_for_additional_opinions Opinion have been presented and seem to have agreed upon the fact that having a local time information is good for a places wiki. Please remove the link currenttimeindia.com from blacklist, since its presence in a places wiki is considered to be actually useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.7.16.99 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 Oct 2007 (UTC)

Not blocked on Meta but on en wp blacklist - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
the additions of this link on a wiki are getting blocked, with the following message :

<Message Start> 

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: www.currenttimeindia.com

Return to Main Page. <Message End>

Not sure what this means. Can someone please explain. Herby mentions en wp blacklist, What is en wp ? and how to request for a removel from this blacklist. Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.7.18.238 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 Oct 2007 (UTC)

the fact that you could create the link (above) here proves it is not blacklisted here. Please go to w:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist which is where you would need to appeal this decision, thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

beatbox.be

Hello , I'm from the BeatBox.Be team and we administrate a website about beatboxing (music with the mouth). The main site is being updated, but holds lots of accurate information allready. We also have a community and a beatbox database with links to movies of beatbox and learning how to beatbox,. One of our administrators is Roxorloops, who is vice-world champion beatbox.
I wanted to add some info to the 'beatbox' or 'beatboxing' page on wikipedia, about the world championship that took place in Leipzig (where Roxorloops 'battled' as well). I also added a link to our site (beatbox.be) as a reference. When I wanted to submit the content it said that beatbox.be (I cannot type the actual link) was blacklisted as spam ???

I'm wondering how this is possible ? Can't I post a link to my site to redirect users to more information ?,

Please help me out

Best regards
BeatBox.Be Team —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.198.254.8 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 9 Oct 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the section above here you will see why the site was blacklisted. Given the extent of the placement of links across wikis and the fact that it is very unusual to remove a blacklisting based on a site owner's request the blacklisting is likely to stay I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 07:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok , I have to admit that may have been my fault as I asked someone to put links to beatbox.be on all subsites of wikipedia. I thought since I was running an international site on beatbox, this was not considered spamming, as there is lots and lots of accurate info on beatbox.be to find. That person also doesn't speak French, and there was only one warning given (in French), he probably didn't understand and that's why it was ignored. This person was just helping BeatBox.Be out. My sincere apologies for this, and there will never be a link to beatbox.be posted again, unless there is content posted on wikipedia and the link is a reference. If this had come to my attention earlier, I would of acted myself. Could you please look into this again ?

Best Regards BeatBox.Be Team —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.194.176.85 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 Oct 2007 (UTC)

These 2 blacklist removal requests seem to originate from the same telenet.be nodes as some of the spam: dd5e0fbed.access.telenet.be. and dd5e0fd25.access.telenet.be. Requests[8][9], spam.[10]
--A. B. (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that person is one of the webmasters of BeatBox.Be who regularly comes to work on the computer. I'm sorry about the spam, but like I said I didn't know that was a problem, since our website is educational and relevant to the subject. Now that I've read the rules more carefully, our webmaster and I will do the right thing. The intention of the BeatboxBe-account is to put articles online about how to learn to beatbox, about the history of beatbox in Belgium (the vice-world champion of beatbox (Roxorloops) is from Belgium), and to promote beatbox in general. But the source for all of this is beatbox.be, so it would be great if this link could get unbanned. I promise you no more abuse from our part.

BeatBox.Be

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
--A. B. (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You don't seem to understand me. I was not aware that what we did was 'spamming'. Our site is an informative beatbox site, therefore I thought it wouldn't be a problem posting this link. The only warning we had was in French, and we can barely speak it, let alone read it.

Couldn't you make an exception this time ? The spamming will be stopped, I guarantee.

Our goal on wikipedia is to post info about beatbox, especially belgian beatbox, but it always gets deleted unless there is a reference, so links to beatbox.be on wikipedia were posted. (you can check out the history for the 'BeatboxBe' wikipedia account, I had to put the history of Belgium beatbox up and up again all the time, while it was accurate information). some BeatboxBe history So if I will post an article now, it will most definitely be deleted again, since the source is beatbox.Be ,and I can't even post a link.

How am I supposed to post credible articles now ? We have learnt our lesson, and haven't been decently warned about this before. So please give it one more chance, it can always be blacklisted again if there is abuse.

Here are the relevant rules:
--A. B. (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

First of all, since our site is about beatbox, learning and talking about it with an online community, and your site is an encyclopedia of beatbox there is bound to be a common interest, offcourse. So I was not really writing about my site, I'm writing about beatbox in Belgium and put a link there as a reference.

And I understand about posting those links, they should not of been posted;

but what is written on beatbox.be is a reliable source. beatbox.be is the only website in Belgium covering beatbox, and on the forum there is a beatbox-database with info and movies on lots of beatboxers (with sources included). It may look a bit amateuristic right now, but an update to the site is in the works (by the webmaster that is assigned now). But even now everything that is written is with the approval of head-admin Roxorloops (vice-world champion beatbox), so I 'd say that's pretty reliable. The only thing that could be hold against us is that we're new and we were unaware of the hard regulations on posting links. I can however promise you that everything written on behalf of BeatboxBe is accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.194.176.85 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 Oct 2007 (UTC)

You focus on "accuracy", can I ask you to read all of A. B.'s comprehensive posting, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply


That's because I sense the only reason my domain stays banned is because that source would not be credible according to A.B. .The vice-world champion of beatbox is administrator with us, we now have a webmaster and a bunch of volunteers and I'm constantly scoping the net for beatbox-news., how much more credible can it go. We are giving beatbox-workshops and lessons in school in Belgium. We're performing almost on a weekly basis and YOU tell me we're not a reliable source ????

AND HOW MUCH DO I HAVE TO SAY I WAS NOT AWARE OF ALL OF THESE RULES WHEN THESE URLS WERE POSTED. I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING THE GOOD THING. It's like we're stuck in a loop. I told you countless times WE were the source of the spamming, and it will be stopped.

Wikipedia needs URL's as a reference and there is NO OTHER BELGIUM BEATBOX SITE online. So how are people supposed to get an image of beatbox in Belgium, while some of the best beatboxers in the world are Belgian, if we can't even post articles.

What do you consider reliable anyway ? Some commercial website that doesn't know anything about beatbox and then suddenly decides they know how it goes ? Come on , please. We have been at it (though amateuristically), since 2004. And now we're having a semi-pro update, looking for financial support from the government, ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.194.179.153 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 Oct 2007 (UTC)

I would have hoped that it was obvious that "shouting" at us would not help you. Equally you have been told a number of times that we are not at all likely to remove a blacklisting based on a request by the site owner. If the link is needed somewhere the it is possible to whitelist a specific page of the site on a specific wiki but this would only be done if an established wiki editor's case for it was accepted by the local community. --Herby talk thyme 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the 'shouting', I was merely using capital letters to make my point. I'm telling you for the thousandst time, if you remove the domain from the blacklist, there will be no more problems, it was just a miscommunication. I CAN'T speak French, and that was the only warning we had, in French !!!...

And I do not uderstand this rule: we are not at all likely to remove a blacklisting based on a request by the site owner ? So for who DO you whitelist url's? I'm the owner and therefore the only one who benefits from a link to the beatbox.be page. And I don't earn money of it, it's to help the Belgium beatbox scene.

And I don't have time to ask for reference-url's being whitelisted on all the wiki's. Like you said, you have to get permission and our articles were allready deleted so much... I really , really don't understand your policy. Whatever happened to forgiving people for their mistakes and giving them another chance ???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.194.179.153 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 Oct 2007 (UTC)

Ok as you seem to miss reading the links provided as to why the Foundation would not require links to your site I will copy them from above
Here are the relevant rules:
Equally you ask who would we whitelist or remove sites for so I will repeat my posting above If the link is needed somewhere the it is possible to whitelist a specific page of the site on a specific wiki but this would only be done if an established wiki editor's case for it was accepted by the local community.
Maybe you should actually read through what is here rather than continuing to ignore such information. The approach you take will not endear you to folk I'm afraid. It is likely I will only return to this request to close it if no one else does in due course, thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I allready read it through, and there will be no problem in the future. That's what I keep telling you. I didn't know about this rule: you're not supposed to write about or link to your own site/organization. I thought since a website covered beatbox, it could be posted.

We only had one warning in French.

And actually, I'm allready an editor on the English wikipedia beatbox-page, but not an established one, I presume, since my articles keep on getting deleted, which is a shame. But if I am to write about 'beatbox in Belgium' on wikipedia, I need to post a website link as a reference. I have had those warnings before. And now I get blacklisted for posting too much links.

And I thought, since all this was based upon a misunderstanding from our part (posting those links), it could be solved easily in here. Little did I know...

If I had known the strong policies against links coming from our team, this would have never happened. And I am to blame for not knowing this and apparantly need to suffer the consequences.

So how do I 'whitelist' it again on the English Wikipedia ?, who do I need to contact for that ?

Thanx for you help. AB and herby, you are just a couple of lifeless nerds. You said I was shouting because i used capitals, wtf?? I was making my point.

You don't have a clue about being human, but the real problem is that your parents don't have a clue about raising children. And if your anwer is: I don't think resorting to that kind of language is going to get anything done. Well I don't care anymore, bunch of faggots. You weren't going to do anything in the first place, because you're well beyond stupid editors who can't seem to handle a situation as it presents itsself.

Your superiors will hear about this, I'm sure. Greetings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.164.155.2 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 Oct 2007 (UTC)

I will charitably assume that you are not connected with beatbox. However if you do seek whitelisting of this site at en wikipedia I'll make sure a link to this is provided. I have blocked you from editing for your approach. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Plasmatics Question

The following discussion is closed.

Could somebody please explain me why is the official site of punk band The Plasmatics, blocked?, and if it is wrong, how to and unblock it. I tried to add the link on spanish wikipeda article, but it wont let me.--83.165.236.54 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

which URL?--Nick1915 - all you want 08:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC

Google suggests plasmatics.com. The enwiki article lists the official site as "plasmatic.com", which doesn't exist. Someone likely had to modify the URL to edit the article. --88.104.171.139 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see any reason for this being blacklisted and can't yet find the request, I look some more --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - I can see no reason why this site should be listed here. If spam arrives, we can relist the site, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sites on Windows Mobile software

Dear Wiki moderators, we have website on Windows Mobile software - handster-com, which has pretty high number of visitors in Windows Mobile area. Currently 500.000+ unique visitors a month. This is a high number for such area as Windows Mobile. You can check statistics on Alexa.com for example.

We ran some promotions, encouraging active users to add links on their blogs/forums/websites. I can see that our site was blocked together with pocketpcaddict - probably one of active community members added both websites at many places.

I know that we also added couple of links too some time ago, but not too much and these links were relevant, each pointing to selection of programs for specified device only. At the same time, if you have a look at "External Links" sections on Motorola_Q, Windows_mobile, Ipaq, Dell_Axim - most of the links now, except Microsoft/HP/Dell, will be as much relevant (or even less relevant), as our Handster or PocketPcAddict In the "External links" sections you will find websites that sell goods or ran Google adsense/other advertisment. The link we added had the same or even better quality for readers as links you have now in "External links" section. Please remove Handster from your blacklist section.

P.S. actually we don't really mind being blocked from wiki. What we don't like is that this blacklist is available for public access in Internet. Imagine that we would publish names of people who do frauds on our website somewhere on the Internet. What would happen? We will get lawsuites. So I kindly ask you to remove handster from blacklist or make this blacklist available for wiki moderators only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shab victor (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 Oct 2007 (UTC)

To describe this activity here as couple of links I find surprising to say the least. Equally, as I am sure others will tell you, it is most unlikley that a site will be removed at the request of the site owner. I am sure others will comment --Herby talk thyme 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Herby, thank you for the reply. As I wrote, we had promotion for active users, asking them to add links on relevant websites, where we actually ment their own blogs or forums they participate in. Most of the links were added apparently by one of such users. That person could be active member of PPCAddict community, as their website was added as well.
And I have nothing against your blocking system - you are free to choose whom to block or whom to accept. But I don't like that you publish this blacklist on Internet for public use. The page is called "SPAM blacklist". Legally SPAM is defined differently. And you have to define on that page what "blacklist" means. And you need to have legal proofs agains each company, that you publicize in such way on the Internet. (if you keep if for wiki moderators access only, it is a different story, it is up to you). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shab victor (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 Oct 2007 (UTC)
"Legal comments" seem rather strange to me - am I misunderstanding or is this some sort of threat? In practice all that is recorded here on wikis is factual. The disruption to many Foundation sites is available for all to see. What any page is called seems quite irrelevant. If you have legal issues contact the Foundation with them, if you have blacklist issues this is the place to be, however as I said before it is highly unlikely that an entry will be removed as a result of an appeal from a site owner after such an quantity of link placement.
I will comment no further on legal issues as it it outside my remit --Herby talk thyme 07:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Shab victor's "active community member":
Viktor Chabourov
vic_shabourov @ yahoo.com
Burggrafenweg 3
Leimen, Baden-Wuertemberg 69181
DE
(I wonder if SAP AG know their network's being used to promote this handster.com site?)


I concur that pocketpcaddict does not appear to share common ownership from looking at their web page, their registration history and their hosting arrangement[14][15]; they may have been blacklisted by mistake or perhaps because of Joe jobbing.


Here are the relevant Wikipedia rules on all of this:
I'm citing the English versions; similar rules exist on the other Wikipedias


Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation projects (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each project wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
--A. B. (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

If pocketpcaddict should not be listed then let me know & I will remove it, thanks. As to the other A. B. has expressed the position very well indeed --Herby talk thyme 10:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

SudPontino.net

The following discussion is closed.

Sorry guys, i don't understand why the sudpontino.net website has been blacklisted. The website speak about 19 cities of the province of Latina in Italy and every city have own section with much info, story, photos, links and more more so i think add every city section of the website to wiki could be a good service, also thinking to the fact that SudPontino.net is the more recent website about this cities and contain mu updated info about it. Is it possible to include it again the white list? -- Markuspizza80

Can I point you to the request above (here). That amount of link placement will always been seen as a problem --Herby talk thyme 10:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
i can understand, but, talking about differente cities i thought to insert a link to the sections for every city described, i think this will surely give a service to the users, is it wrong? If yes, i will remove PERSONALLY every link to my website in Wikipedia. -- Markuspizza80
Markus, typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means, Markus, feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, Markus, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. --A. B. (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks a lot for the informations! Markuspizza80

iqpe.com

The following discussion is closed.

Why http://www.iqpe.com is banned? - The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://www.iqpe.com I wanted to add it in IQ directory ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.37.176.74 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 Oct 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you can create the link here (above) means it is not blacklisted here. If you are on en wp then you need to ask here, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here's the background on that domain:
--A. B. (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

hometown.aol.com/musica60

The following discussion is closed.

It's a personal music page about '60 no active Spanish and Latin American bands. Without publicity (except aol publicity). http://hometown.aol.com/musica60 it's not spam :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.30.84.76 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 12 Oct 2007 (UTC)

As with the one above the fact that you can create the link here (above) means it is not blacklisted here. If you are on en wp then you need to ask here, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

african-american-playwrights.suite101.com/article.cfm/black_nativity_by_langston_hughes

Can you remove this from the blacklist? I'm trying to link to it on wikipedia as a reference for the article on black nativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Nativity 71.190.91.195 14:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (futurebird)Reply

It is suite101 that is blacklisted so the best bet will be to go to the en wp whitelist and request that the specific page you want is whitelisted there - thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Encyclopedia Dramatica

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

In practice I think you may be wrong. This list serves to block any "undesirable" site from placing links to Foundation projects. While the site is listed here there cannot be any spam attacks can there. I would certainly suggest you would be well advised to seek consensus and not merely remove the entry. Checking the original request (here) there certainly was substantial evidence of spamming. A rushed removal would be unwise IMO, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think it was added to the blacklist after the enwiki ArbCom ruled that links to Encyclopedia Dramatica were outlawed. I think it is better to move this entry to the enwiki spamlist, as the enwiki ArbCom does not decide what links are banned on other wikis. Melsaran 16:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Does ED pass the EL policy on any project? They are certainly not a reliable source and ED is certainly not a notable website. I can only see this resulting in more hassle. J.smith 17:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
The English Wikipedia has, compared to other Wikipedias, very high standards for inclusion. There are several reliable sources that have reported on ED, but since it fails the guidelines of the English Wikipedia they deleted the article there. That does not mean that smaller Wikipedias with lower standards for inclusion couldn't have an article on them (I could name dozens of less notable websites that have an article on the Dutch Wikipedia). Anyway, that's not really relevant here, since the spam blacklist should only be used against persistent spammers, and (as far as I know) there haven't been any problems with ED on projects other than en.wikipedia. Melsaran
There was also some harassment/libel issues involved as well. I really think it would be more appropriate to whitelist the main page on the various wikis that deem the site is notable instead of opening the can of worms that is the ED issue. The ED page strives on drama... and that makes the site a source of trolling. If a "crack in the armor" is opened up, I can see it being exploited and I see very little gain for us in opening up said crack. J.smith 18:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • As I recall, not only were there serious and persistent harassment issues (en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO), there was also a persistent and unmanageable problem of links being added to mainspace by ED fans. If it is decided that ED is notable enough for an article about it on some other language Wikipedia, then a local whitelist of the home page will be sufficient to allow a link fomr that article, but ED itself was being linked widely and indiscriminately, and that, added to its problematic content, was enough to be a serious problem. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Where, apart from an article on ED itself, could ED be used as a source or reference? I would say nowhere. As a site it is completely without any redeeming merit whatsoever, having gone with the complete opposite of Uncyclopedia's "how to be funny and not just stupid" - ED, then, is stupid and just not funny. Stupid, and obscene, and occasionally outright vicious. Its usefulness in building an encyclopaedia is precisely zero. [former User JzG] 12:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Other attack sites have been blacklisted here; this does not appear to be an en.wikipedia-only issue. Here are several examples:
Wasn't there also an it.wikipedia attacksite blacklisted here?
--A. B. (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gamedogs.org

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

The link to the discussion is here. The on wiki discussion is certainly uncivil. To state that the link would continue to be added using proxies was unwise I think in terms of your case to seek removal. I'm sure others will have a say & I'll go read around --Herby talk thyme 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
As you can see from the discussion, there was no "baiting." I'm not sure what the appealer is trying to suggest about my biases; the current article about Pit Bull contains plenty of content from both sides of the debate. The link in question is not a high-value resource, and my submission of it to the blacklist was based on the editors threats to circumvent Wikipedia policies on external links. Ohnoitsjamie 19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply


I glad this has come up since it reminds me to take care of some unfinished business.
Background on this and related domains:
Related domains were being spammed as recently as this month -- I was busy at the time and never had the chance to get them blacklisted on en.wikipedia. I'll take care of that now.
--A. B. (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).

Can't save

This page can't be saved because of a spam link, but it's not clear which link is the offending one. Can anyone help? --Epukinsk 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

Blacklist doesn't work

My blacklist doesn't work for some reason. After putting the black list I made another account and with that I edited a page with some nasty words and links but the blacklist doesn't block it. What do I do??? --CrazyGamester 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

Large spam post breaks $wgSpamRegex

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

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

Discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

Local blacklisting vs. global blacklisting?

Now that there is a local blacklisting capability, the question arises as to when to blacklist locally and when to blacklist here.

My personal opinion is that Meta should remain the primary venue for blacklisting. It's hard to predict who's going to spam more than one Wikipedia. While we now have a tool to find a given spam domain on the 57 largest Wikipedias, it remains problematic to find it on the 200 smaller Wikipedias or the other 450 to 500 Wikimedia projects (Wikiquote, Wikisource, etc.) There's value to all these other projects in listing stuff here.

I think the local blacklist option is good when one project wants a domain blacklisted and another project wants to use it. This happens occasionally when a given spammer makes himself intolerable on one project while the link is being used appropriately on other projects.

What do others think about this? --A. B. (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Generally speaking, I agree with you. I don't have a big problem with local blacklisting on a particular project as a way to immediately interrupt a spammer in progress, but standard procedure should probably be to follow that action up with a request for meta blacklisting.--Isotope23 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
As a crosswiki admin if I see spam pages created or bunches of links placed I immediately add them to local blacklists that I can access. It's quicker and easier than coming here (where I have not always been helpfully received) and there is at least one or two sites that I've blacklisted that have apparently valid links on en wp for example - just my 0.02 --Herby talk thyme 07:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
See Spam blacklist/About and use the block with the smallest possible range. Now local blacklists are available it's not worth the work of blocking here and potentially causing side-effects in hundreds of wikis until there is an established pattern of cross-wiki spamming. Perhaps automatic rejection until at least five wikis have been spammed. And not automatic acceptance after five, just eligibility. Jamesday 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Interesting idea - how would you know a site was blocked by five wikis say? They do not tend to be well used (local blacklists) - I'm about the only one who adds to the 4 I have access to. The principle is fine - the practice? --Herby talk thyme 10:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Metric criteria are nice I think. I don't think however we need to say "blocked from five or more wikis". I think that it is just okay "five or more wikis were spammed". Currently, my personal criteria is very low though - spamming to two or more wikis regardless languages (both sets of i. enwiki and enwiktionary and ii. enwiki and dewiki are enough for me, I mean). --Aphaia 10:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am with AB on this: we should use meta as both the main blocking list and also a forum where people go to see if someone has been causing a wider problem. Otherwise it becomes impossibly complicated to block from here and the argument "it this a nasty spammer who xyz" becomes "who abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". --AndrewCates 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • reset

In the past I've not been well received on this page so have tended to avoid it and operate local blacklists where I have the rights. However I am increasingly interested in this as at least a clearing house for queries influenced in part by A.B. I have posted to a couple of Foundation mailing lists & I'm hoping to hear other views. I'm happy to review/discuss possible spam issues here whenever I'm around - cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If we don't blacklist by default here, then there should be a list or some mechanism (perhaps a bot) that tracks all the entries on the local lists so that other projects can check their links against what's been spammed elsewhere.
Ideally, the bot (or human volunteers) would also run periodic checks using a faster, expanded version of http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/linksearch to see if locally blacklisted links are showing up on any of the 700+ Wikimedia projects. (I say "faster, expanded" since that tool checks up to the 57 largest Wikipedias and may take several minutes when checking 57).
Also, it's hard to rule out cross-wiki spam when our best tool just checks 57 of our 700 projects.
--A. B. (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
PS, Call me lazy, but maybe it's just easier to just blacklist by default here as opposed to setting up a new coordination system.--A. B. (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
When I was involved into the maintenance of this list, some years ago, I got such complaints by email periodically. It takes a time to reply them courtly but firmly. I think this kind of complaints are better to deal by the local people at first. Also I'm afraid this list affects too much websites. So I don't support "anything on meta and at first" tactics. And as for maintenance, this page is huge and editing is a pain. Single-website affecting spams are better to go to their local list, I think. --Aphaia 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Aphaia, right now, it seems like this list is running pretty smoothly without much admin effort. As for its maintenance, that doesn't seem to be much of a problem now. As for e-mails, I'm not an admin, but because I make so many requests here, I get them too. I just refer them back to this talk page, suggesting that they make their case here before a wider audience; I also make sure at least they get answer from me here if not from others. The admins that work on this list seem to have thick skins, are undeterred by complaints and are always willing to do the work. As for this list affecting many websites, you're right and that argument cuts both ways. This list also protects many web sites from known spammers.
In any event, what's the mechanism we're using for coordinating to ensure that spammers locally blacklisted in one place aren't spamming in another? Who's doing this work now? We must have a system in place to track this before we deprecate this list to use for proven cross-wiki spam only.
A useful parallel is the whole open proxy issue. For several years, different projects have battled open proxies separately resulting in a large duplication of effort. An open proxy blocked on fr.wikipedia (perhaps our best OP-fighters) would then be used by other spammers, vandals or POV-pushers to cause problems on nl.wikipedia or ja.wikibooks. Only now is there some convergence on a meta-level solution. Meanwhile, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction with spam. Meta has a critical role to play here, whether it's blacklisting globally or just tracking globally to catch cross-wiki spam. Either way, we must not abdicate our role and our responsibility (especially to the smaller wikis which have proven so vulnerable to spam). --A. B. (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's another time to blacklist at meta: links to blatant copyright violations. For example, when the domains associated with this discussion all finally get identified, they should probably be blacklisted here even if we only find it on one project. That's because these sites are all blatant violations of different magazines' copyrights; we can't afford to have links to these sites if we can help it. (See the discussion of "contributory infringement" at en:Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works and en:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). --A. B. (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agree completely - I do think we need to hammer out some approach to Meta blacklisting policy probably by extended/clarifying this. For anyone new arriving here (Meta sysop or another project user) this page is frankly unhelpful. My time is under considerable pressure at present but I do see this as a high priority and any help will be appreciated.
We would be able to clarify cross wiki spamming as a concept, the fact that some site should probably be blocked at a Meta level anyway such as above or sites that may compromise machines etc. We can also make blocking url shorteners a policy for example --Herby talk thyme 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Besides of all ... I eventually found this page: Spam blacklist policy discussion. Since this discussion is lengthy and it becomes clearer we need to have a global policy of inclusion for maintaining this page, are we better to move the discussion place? Or better to stay here? --Aphaia 22:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm for here, because if it's spam to one wiki odds are it's spam to most of them. Say, you have a marketing company that uses aggressive JavaScript, if each user on en.wiki who has been there complains, odds are it'll still be aggressive to fr.wiki. Yamakiri 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok - I agree with Yamakiri's point generally. If they spam one wiki they probably aren't useful to another one (& if they are whitelisting is an option).
However (& thanks Aphaia - I must have found that page in the past because I'd got it on my watchlist) we have Spam blacklist policy discussion & Spam blacklist/About and yet still no real clarity about policy or help for those who are not used to these pages be they admins or other users. My postings to both Foundation-l and the list for Meta met with nothing much so I guess it is up to us to hammer out guidelines policy etc. Until early October my time will be limited but I'll do what I can. I think it may well be worth a fresh start rather than trying to make changes to what we already have? --Herby talk thyme 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

My 2 cents. I'm sysop at 7 wikis. I would always use local blacklist (for instance, a spanish page isn't likely to be spammed on russian wiki), but if I see crosswiki spam as I JUST spot for [16], I'd come and global block. Local lists exist for a reason, and it's easier to keep track of. Global list should be used only when global blocking is needed. drini [es:] [commons:] 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Beyond the 57 Wikipedias searched by Eagle 101's cross-wiki search tool, this blacklist is also relied on by 650+ other Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wiktionaries, other Wikipedias, etc.). So for Spanish projects, there are these additional targets for Spanish-only spammers for which we don't have much visibility unless someone manually runs a linksearch domain-by-domain, project-by-project:
That or if we're lucky and Luxo's x-wiki user search tool finds the spammer using the same IP or user name on other projects. (That tool is sometimes off-line; at other times it misses contributions on some wikis).
I think another, less important factor to consider is how non-Wikimedia sites might use a domain. All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. A site selling an obviously bogus get-rich-quick scheme or magnetic underpants as a cancer cure has no value to any of our projects nor to any of the 1000s of other wikis our blacklist affects. You might as well do everyone a favor and globally blacklist such a site even if it appears on just one Wikimedia project. --A. B. (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Picking up Drini's point, local blacklisting is great. However it is dependent on admins locally being
  1. Aware of it
  2. Understanding regex adequately
  3. Being interested in the prevention of (inappropriate) external links
If any of those criteria are absent then so is local blacklisting effectively.
Equally on A. B.'s point, there are some sites that just aren't needed by the Foundation (or most other folk) such as the batch of adult sites I just added. In such a case it matters not whether they spammed one or many wikis they should be listed here not locally I think.
We do need a sharpening of policy (referred to above) which - when excess time is available! - I certainly aim to take a look at. --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Coibot's monitor list is quite efficient at spotting crosswiki spam, however it requires that someone actually look at the reports and notice it (as I did with uarticles.blogspot.com, which was recently meta-blacklisted). It has a 'stalk page' feature which picks up domains added to watched pages using the spamlink template.. I imagine it could stalk the local mediawiki blacklist pages as well. I'm a bit reluctant to give it more tasks at this point as it and it's related linkwatchers are resource intensive, consuming about 2/3rds of the resources on a 4proc/4gig Sun Ultra80. --Versageek 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

en:User:Shadow1 and I are working on the linkwatchers. At the moment we are running them on 722 wikis (which is 'all' by the count of about one and a half week ago). User:COIBot is watching these 722 wikis, and reports when a link is on its monitorlist (and those links are generally there when it is spammed, see the explanation on en:User:COIBot). On the english wikipedia we use a spamlink template for reporting external links, which directly links to a number of search engines, and to a number of reporting systems, including COIBot. Would the template be of interest here? --Beetstra 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

A link to the template would be useful? Getting reporting a little more consistent on here would make our lives a little easier too - it is not always clear what the extent of the problem is (nor sometimes the exact site name). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I created a version of that template here a few months ago: Template:Spamlink. It may need to be updated with the latest, greatest features - but it is here. --Versageek 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have updated the template to a more meta-like form. When you use '* {{spamlink|example.com}}' it displays the next line:

example.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)example.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

In order:

  1. First what is in the template,
  2. Linksearch for meta and the 5 big wikis (en, de, fr, en.wiktionary, fr.wiktionary, see Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size),
  3. 'LinkReport' is a report generated by an IRC bot by Betacommand, it is a save of a current linksearch on en.wikipedia.
  4. 'COIBot Linkreport' contains a summary of all use (by not-whitelisted users) on all 722 wikiprojects on Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size, since the moment of blacklisting/monitoring (see en:User:COIBot for more info).
  5. Eagle's spam report search searches for reports on en.wikipedia spam archives, and here as well I think.
  6. interwiki link search: 20 and 57 search in resp. the 20 and 57 biggest wikis.
  7. LinkWatcher search searches in en:User:Shadow1's database (only en at the moment, probably at some time also for more/all wikipedia).
  8. Wikipedia search searches for the existence of the page with the url name on en, de and fr.
  9. google search searches for info on the site on google.
  10. Veinors pages contain also link-addition information
  11. domaintools gives info on the domain
  12. AboutUs.org gives info on the domain
  13. Yahoo backlinks, search engine results.

I guess it contains pretty much all the tools needed to investigate the link, latest additions and current use. Hope this helps. --Beetstra 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks good - we'll see how it goes as it gets used. Given the nature of it I'll probably semi protect it I think - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think it is protected (or did you just do that?). --Beetstra 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
By the way, to keep yourself more or less up to date, you can watchlist User:COIBot/LinkReports, that gets updated when COIBot saves a report (about every 5 minutes). It may get you one step ahead of a spammer (though take care interpreting the report, COIBot sometimes picks up links by mistake). --Beetstra 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Protection - yes (when I am around I am not generally slow!). As to watching (& for me) the honest answer at present is "no time" - I would consider myself pretty active on three wikis at least so I tend not be short of work. When I get time I will check it out and see what I can do - thanks for your work & regards --Herby talk thyme 13:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=709982"