Talk:Spam blacklist
- Proposed additions
- Please provide evidence of spamming on several wikis. Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist. Exceptions include malicious domains and URL redirector/shortener services. Please follow this format. Please check back after submitting your report, there could be questions regarding your request.
- Proposed removals
- Please check our list of requests which repeatedly get declined. Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. Please consider whether requesting whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use is more appropriate - that is very often the case.
- Other discussion
- Troubleshooting and problems - If there is an error in the blacklist (i.e. a regex error) which is causing problems, please raise the issue here.
- Discussion - Meta-discussion concerning the operation of the blacklist and related pages, and communication among the spam blacklist team.
- #wikimedia-external-linksconnect - Real-time IRC chat for co-ordination of activities related to maintenance of the blacklist.
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. This leaves a signature and timestamp so conversations are easier to follow.
Completed requests are marked as {{added}}/{{removed}} or {{declined}}, and are generally archived (search) quickly. Additions and removals are logged.
- Information
- List of all projects
- Overviews
- Reports
- Wikimedia Embassy
- Project portals
- Country portals
- Tools
- Spam blacklist
- Title blacklist
- Email blacklist
- Rename blacklist
- Closure of wikis
- Interwiki map
- Requests
- Permissions
- Bot flags
- New languages
- New projects
- Username changes
- Translations
- Speedy deletions
- snippet for logging
- {{sbl-log|2548109#{{subst:anchorencode:SectionNameHere}}}}
Proposed additions
|
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (example.com, not http://www.example.com). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived. |
livejasmin.com
livejasmin.com
As per en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, this website is sex-related social networking site, it may contain malware and considered dangerous and spam. --Kungfu2187 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
encyclopediadramatica.ch
Content fork of Encyclopedia Dramatica, with the vindictiveness ratcheted up another notch. Has already been used for harassment on en.wp. See also en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#encyclopediadramatica.ch. Judgment there was to defer to here. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also;
- {{LinkSummary|lurkmoarpedia.com}}
- {{LinkSummary|encyclopediaerratica.com}}
- As suggested in the request below. Thanks--Hu12 15:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- prematurely archivedmay want to correct. also related;
- {{LinkSummary|ed.ch}}
Thanks, --Hu12 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Isn't this supposed to be a spam blacklist? Is anyone spamming this link now? Will blacklisting it reduce the nonexistent spamming or provoke people to do so? What you're seeing is the overflow from a content dispute on en.wikipedia about whether to link to the site or admit its existence at all. It is not Meta's role to impose this as a global content restriction, based on the argument that individual users of a wiki are harassing people or (possibly) violating a U.S. law or (very dubiously) infringing copyright. Wnt 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, we're seeing more than that: [1]. The earlier two edits to the same talkpage by the same user ([2], [3]) were equally as insulting and also used the link. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 20:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I agree that it isn't Meta's job to enforce Remedy 1, but there's already been enwiki spam, as noted above, and there's bound to be more. I also note Spam blacklist/About which states: "URL redirection domains will be added uncontroversially, as they provide an exploit used to bypass the blacklist and serve no useful purpose on our projects" and "Domains hosting copyright violations, or other legally problematic may be blacklisted on a case-by-case basis, provided there is strong justification and consensus to do so exists". "Legally problematic is an understatement in this case. 198.82.19.219 05:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support I (Silver seren) have also been asking for it to be blacklisted here on ANI. 165.91.14.230 08:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- There may be some uses of it now, but is it truly persistent global spam? I don't see any redirection domains here, and there is a debate rather than a "strong justification" about copyright violations. Further, http://ed.ch doesn't get me anywhere, and according to Netcraft it hasn't been pointing anywhere - but blocking it could hinder 43 other sites that end in ed.ch.[4] http://encyclopediaerratica.com/ links to a quite inactive site (see Recent Changes there, the first page of which covers three days, and they have no article on Australia) and is unlikely to be an issue of any kind. http://lurkmoarpedia.com points to a more active project with some archived article text but not pictures, but I still get back to yesterday on the first page of Recent Changes. I think that at least the first two, possibly the third, could be struck from this discussion non-controversially. Wnt 13:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support I (Silver seren) have also been asking for it to be blacklisted here on ANI. 165.91.14.230 08:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Theres not excessive amounts of spam occuring. Just a few incidents by I think the same person. JV Smithy 19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
ohinternet.info
Misleading URL redirect (meant to resemble the SFW ohinternet.com). Redirects to encyclopediadramatica.ch's NSFW "Offended" page. --Michaeldsuarez 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Administrator note: This not only is forked content, it is forbidden per link policies and fails as a reliable source. These links are actively being used to attack and harass wikipedia and its users, as stated above...therefore- Websites outside Wikipedia that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors and those who choose to edit the encyclopedia is a serious matter. It discourages participation, and may put people in danger.
- An attack site is a site outside Wikipedia that engages in any of the following
- Compiles or sponsors efforts to obtain evidence that may be used to discover the real world identities of Wikipedia contributors;
- used to impugn a person's character
- Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
- Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians
- An attack site might be run by an individual, in the form of a private website or a blog, or it could be a virtual community, such as another wiki or discussion forum.
- Previous consensus, rulings, practice
- "Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." See #Combating harassment
- "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." See #Links to attack sites
- "Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions." See #Support of harassment
- "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." See #Outing sites as attack sites
- ArbCom rulings[5]
- Harrassment
- 1) It is unacceptable to harass another user.
(Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
- Combatting harassment
- 2) Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves.
(Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
- Links to attack site
- 3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.
(Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
- Solidarity
- 4) Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action.
(Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
- Support of harassment
- 7) Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks.
(Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
- Outing sites as attack sites
- 11) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.
(Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
- Linking to external sites as harassment[6]
- 4.2) Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
(Passed 7-0 at 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
- Harrassment
- Blocking would not only be uncontroversial, it is Supported by Previous consensus, rulings, and practice. --Hu12 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support, the entire site is a copyright violation so no link would be allowed anyway. End of, really. JzG 14:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Encyclopediadramatica is already blocked here on meta in its .com, .net, and .org incarnations. There should be no problem (or even much discussion) about adding the .ch TLD to that regex. Related aliases should also be blacklisted, of course. Amatulic 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Striking – lurkmoarpedia.com is gone, encyclopediaerratica.com was spammed (by rival encyclopediadramatica.ch) beyond repair, and ed.ch doesn't exist. encyclopediadramatica.ch is now the only fork of relevance. --Michaeldsuarez 23:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Diet spam
article-board.com/fat-burning-furnace-reviews
thedietsolutionprogram-exposed.org
thedietsolutionreviewscam.com
fatburningfurnacereviewscam.com
truthaboutabsreviewscam.com
fatloss4idiotsreviewscam.com
dietsolutionreviewscam.com
findtohealth.com
Users:
- Davidlass [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]
- Davidlasspq [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]
- Nomaoogao [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]
- Quinnmodel [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]
Spammed on Commons and several other projects. Seems like they've also been spamming Wikia sites. Jafeluv 10:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Added -- Dferg ☎ talk 09:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
minoxidilforte.blogcu.com and several others
Cross-wiki spamming of these sites by the same user and group of IPs:
- links
minoxidilforte.blogcu.com
minoxidilforte.com
discreet.gen.tr
bayanazdirici.gen.gg
- user
- Example IPs
professay.com
professay.com
bestessayhelp.com
- Spammers
User:92.244.116.149(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:95.135.75.103(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
MER-C 09:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
li8.ru
li8.ru
URL shortener. MER-C 10:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
gadaf.fi
gadaf.fi
URL shortener. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
cropcirclesandmore.com
cropcirclesandmore.com
See also Blacklist request case
- Cross wiki spamming
- en:Special:Contributions/82.74.96.153
- en:Special:Contributions/82.74.107.1
- fr:Special:Contributions/82.242.197.117
- it:Special:Contributions/82.242.197.117
- de:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- pl:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- es:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- pt:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- bg:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- ca:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- cs:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- en:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- fi:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- hu:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- ja:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- it:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- no:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- ro:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- sl:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- sq:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- uk:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- vi:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- zh:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
- de:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- pl:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- bg:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- ca:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- cs:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- en:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- et:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- fi:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- it:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- lt:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- pt:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- ru:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- sl:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- vi:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
- it:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
- lt:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
- sq:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
- uk:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
- vi:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
- it:Special:Contributions/81.207.48.46
- en:Special:Contributions/81.207.48.46
- nl:Special:Contributions/81.207.48.46
- en:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
- fr:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
- hu:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
- it:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
Continued Long term spamming of multi language wikis, edit warring, incivility. Thanks, --Hu12 16:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --–BruTe talk 06:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
lenr-canr.org
lenr-canr.org
This was blacklisted due to repeated linking to copyright violations hosted on the site, as well as spamming of the site by its (banned) owner and several proxies. One of the proxies campaigned for removal from the blacklist, which was done at the nth request. Having been mainly absent from Wikipedia during the period of a topic ban from the topic area which is the locus of this dispute, one of his first actions was to link to... a copyright violation located at lenr-canr.org. The tiny group of people advocating links to this site have repeatedly shown that they simply do not accept Wikipedia policy on linking to copyright violations hosted on external websites, citing "convenience" in their defence. Wikipedia policy cannot make such an exception because the law of copyright does not make any such exception. The site has been extensively abused in the past and the abusers have returned to abusing once it was removed from the blacklist, so I think it needs to go back on, please. JzG 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no spamming, and there never was. JzG believes that there is copyright violation, though he does not cite any, and that has been discussed in depth many times, including in the successful delisting request. JzG has made many arguments against this site, all ultimately found to be irrelevant to the spam blacklist. All the arguments are false, but addressing them would complicate. No spam, no blacklisting, unless there is a very strong reason. The topic is getting hot from recent news, I expect many more legitimate or arguably legitimate links, both for articles and for discussion. If more fact is needed, please ask. --Abd 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- The links I added after my topic ban expired were added before the delisting request here was granted. They had been whitelisted on en.wiki, after specific consideration of the copyright issue. Jzg is rejecting consensus. He just unilaterally blacklisted the site on en.wiki, without any spamming, based on that very stale action (my addition of whitelisted links), a single edit. Nothing he says about lenr-canr.org should be trusted, his claims should be carefully verified, he was admonished by ArbComm over his prior admin action re the site. --Abd 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Update: lenr-canr.org was delisted at en.wikipedia.[7][8]. Discussion on JzG talk.[9]. --Abd 01:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting per JzG. Ohnoitsjamie 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Any evidence of linkspam? For that matter, of copyvio? Need evidence of legitimate usage? What? --Abd 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose blacklisting. This is the classic case of abuse of the blacklisting process to push a POV on Wikipedia. JzG has already once been sanctioned by the arbitration committee for this abuse, he should learn when to stop! -- Petri Krohn 18:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- The addition or removal of domains to this list is not a vote/!vote. Avoid using "support" or "oppose" because they will be simply plainly ignored. Instead, try to demonstrate why blacklisting is needed or not. Thanks, -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Dferg, I appreciate the point. However, your response seems to be to Petri Krohn's comment, but would equally apply to that from Ohnoitsjamie, right? If I'm correct, a "per JzG" comment with no other evidence or argument would be inappropriate, is that true? Likewise, Petri Krohn's comment that simply points out possible abuse by the editor? But, then, how about the evidence-free arguments that JzG has presented about me, and the evidence-free claim of copyvio? --Abd 20:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- (e/c) Maybe I should have outdented it, so it doesn't appear like a reply but my comment indeed applies to the whole thread and it is not intended to be a specific response to Petri Krohn, see here. Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 21:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Dferg, I appreciate the point. However, your response seems to be to Petri Krohn's comment, but would equally apply to that from Ohnoitsjamie, right? If I'm correct, a "per JzG" comment with no other evidence or argument would be inappropriate, is that true? Likewise, Petri Krohn's comment that simply points out possible abuse by the editor? But, then, how about the evidence-free arguments that JzG has presented about me, and the evidence-free claim of copyvio? --Abd 20:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- The addition or removal of domains to this list is not a vote/!vote. Avoid using "support" or "oppose" because they will be simply plainly ignored. Instead, try to demonstrate why blacklisting is needed or not. Thanks, -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Examination of copyvio claim. Because an isolated copyvio, even if shown, would not be a reason for blacklisting, I'll put the facts in collapse, just in case. I can't even imagine evidence for linkspam.
| apparent basis for claim of recent copyvio. --Abd 21:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
|
No copyright evidence has been supplied; however, on en.wiki, JzG referred to an alleged copyvio, and this is the edit. This is the alleged copyvio. This is the publisher page. Notice that lenr-canr.org is visible prominently in the preview on the publisher page as a place to read cited papers. The author is the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions editor at Naturwissenschaften, the publication (yes, they appointed one in 2009), the publisher being Springer-Verlag, the second-largest publisher of scientific journals in the world, lenr-canr.org hosts many papers originally published by them. So is Springer-Verlag linking to a copyvio site, that violates their own copyright as well as that of other publishers? Does that seem likely? I don't think so. Scientific journals often permit author-permitted preprints, without special permission being needed, and this was discussed ad nauseum in the delisting request. Dr. Storms was the founder of lenr-canr.org, and personally told me he'd provided the paper to the site librarian. The site only hosts papers when authors submit them and represent that they may give permission. (And the librarian does more than that, because sometimes authors cannot give permission.) While, with a thousand papers hosted, it's possible there are isolated errors, this is not a "copyvio" site. Linking to it is allowed by Wikipedia policy; for copyvio allegations, it is normally a case-by-case consideration reserved for editors of the wiki. Not a blacklist issue. Dead horse. --Abd 21:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
urlrace.com
urlrace.com
URL shortener. MER-C 06:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Locksmith websites and similar
artisans-serruriers.fr
locksmithmanchester.cc
menuiserieparis.net
plombier75.fr
serrureporte.com
serrurier.com
serurier.net
sosserrurier.com
All are commercial websites, most are inserted on frwiki since 2009. See for example [10]. Thanks -- Quentinv57 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
market-area.ru
market-area.ru
dataclub.ru
User:Toshaa
User:83.149.3.80(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:83.149.3.177(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:89.163.30.217(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
Redirects to previously blacklisted domain muzland.info in some cases (e.g. market-area.ru/chords/songs.html?auth=214&song=2, dataclub.ru/chords/songs.html?auth=146&song=1). Same spammers as before, see WikiProject Spam item. Please lock the account. MER-C 12:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposed additions (Bot reported)
|
|
This section is for domains which have been added to multiple wikis as observed by a bot.
These are automated reports, please check the records and the link thoroughly, it may report good links! For some more info, see Spam blacklist/Help#COIBot_reports. Reports will automatically be archived by the bot when they get stale (less than 5 links reported, which have not been edited in the last 7 days, and where the last editor is COIBot).
|
COIBot
The LinkWatchers report domains meeting the following criteria:
- When a user mainly adds this link, and the link has not been used too much, and this user adds the link to more than 2 wikis
- When a user mainly adds links on one server, and links on the server have not been used too much, and this user adds the links to more than 2 wikis
- If ALL links are added by IPs, and the link is added to more than 1 wiki
- If a small range of IPs have a preference for this link (but it may also have been added by other users), and the link is added to more than 1 wiki.
COIBot's currently open XWiki reports
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proposed removals
|
|
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section.
Remember to provide the specific domain blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a domain from the blacklist is not a vote; please do not bold the first words in statements. |
155384.com
155384.com
155384.com This is not a waste site, he is an excellent website, I'd like to add entries Monopolizing no way he was, I think it is a pity!! Please reconsider!! Thank you! (12:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC))
Declined. 155384.com is not on the spam blacklist. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
uggs-n-rugs.com
uggs-n-rugs.com
This site should be an exception to the ugg boot exclusion as its a notable company as defined by en:wikipedia policies, the company is notable for its winning of a court case against UGG Australia(currently on exception) that defined ugg as generic term. Currently the blacklist prevents inclusion of link to demostrate a point in a deletion discussion though a link already exists in the article en:Uggs-N-Rugs Gnangarra 15:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest to request for local whitelisting as not to make the current regex more complex than it already is. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 16:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
encyclopediadramatica.com
encyclopediadramatica.com
http://gawker.com/#!5792738/what-happened-to-encyclopedia-dramatica – Encyclopedia Dramatica is gone, and it isn't coming back. encyclopediadramatica.com now redirects to ohinternet.com, which is Safe-for-Work. You may want to remove encyclopediadramatica.com from the blacklist and replace it with the following forks of the old NSFW ED:
- encyclopediadramatica.ch
- lurkmoarpedia.com
- encyclopediaerratica.com
--Michaeldsuarez 02:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- encyclopediadramatica.com should remain on the list as it is a redirect to an ?unrelated ohinternet.com. [11] Redirects aren't allowed anyways, nor would that alone be a valid reason for delisting, considering its sorted history. Probably need to Wait to see, if anything, becomes of that domain first, before removal. The others should certainly be added, I'll add them to the above request--Hu12 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- ed.ch is full of illegal content. See [12]. 198.82.18.218 16:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Raintaxi
raintaxi.com
this is a literary magazine, which is a reliable source for reviews, literary work.Slowking4 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Charles Web Proxy
charlesproxy.com
This is a widely used piece of softare that seems to be blocked because the domain has the word "proxy" in the domain. It's in the meta blocked list because of this block: (ninja|fastfree|getmyspace|school|myinternet|ship|water|les|grand|dirty|cgiweb|arandom|angry|fully)proxy\.com. I think it should be an exception. (Btipling 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC))
Whatbird.com is being erroneously entirely blocked instead of partially
whatbird.com
The site provides tools for identification and bird song clips. I found an error in the sound file on the Common Snipe Wikipedia page and wish to point to the sound file from whatbird.com, on the discussion page, as an aid to whomever can fix the Wikipedia page. There is no reason for a ornithological reference website to be blacklisted. I can only guess that there is some glitch somewhere.--216.126.105.138 17:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- EDIT:now that the template is in place I see there seems to be an issue with spam.whatbird.com, that is indeed a sales page, but the bulk of the website is through identify.whatbird.com which is strictly reference material and is linked on other occasions.--216.126.105.138 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
vk.com
vk.com
Hello. Why does vk.com - the most popular social network in Russia and CIS countries blacklisted? Facebook send it then. Thanks in advance, for what you uncheck it their spam list. basik 13:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Added per request. --Abd 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- So what? It is a social network. Judging by the contributions of the participants, this lock was not justified, as they laid out this official site to site vkontakte.ru
- Just probably Vashj Mark Zuckerberg scared of social networks and ran into a Wikipedia block it.basik 05:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, edits like this say much (and such edits were done on many wikis, and on many non-related pages). Note as well, that the Russian Wikipedia has much of this blacklisted as well (see ru:Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist:
\bvkontakte\.ru\.*\/club \bvkontakte\.ru\.*\/groups\.php # альтернативные ссылки на клубы \bvk\.com\.*\/club # per above --Insider \b.*\.vk\.com \b.*\.vkontakte\.ru # что-то вроде vip ссылок на клубы \bvkontakte\.ua
- 2 of those rules made redundant by the global rule; vk.com was also blacklisted on en.wikipedia. I am afraid that either you will have to show why this is globally useful (note that this site is generally not useful for e.g. the English Wikipedia, it generally fails the reliability guideline, and generally fails the external links guideline there as well - just like e.g. facebook and myspace do). Otherwise, you could try to get specific links whitelisted on specific projects, which will stand a bigger chance of passing. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Such delusional smsl you. If you are going to spam the group of Facebook then facebook.com too, then disable? It is a social network. And it is even better than your Facebook only you have it is not popular. Russian site - vkontakte.ru (official), other languages - vk.com (too formal). So it is necessary to unlock. because spammers are spamming their groups should not suffer the usual people. And the fact that you have given an example, the similarity of site-invariant vk and vkontakte - it is simply fraudulent websites. That they should be blocked, but not vk.com 78.106.76.6 08:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, reverse logic is not going to hold .. I actually should have added to the '.. show why this is globally useful ...': 'and show that the spamming campaign by multiple IPs and editors has stopped'. Note also, that I did not decline the de-blacklisting, I just asked for more information (which now became more, sorry). Regards, --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support removal or more sophisticated filtering. Ru.wiki shows much more precise filtering for problem links (which may be old, I haven't checked). See: [w:Vkontakte], an article on the highly notable site, which has the URL in the infobox. This is a clearly legit usage, but, if I'm correct, it would be impossible to add that URL if it is removed. I'd check that, but it could cause disruption. It might be impossible to save some changes to the infobox. Because of the nature of this site, there will be substantial addition of links, and not all legitimate usages of links are for "reliable source," that is en.wiki bias, there are other purposes, and sometimes a normally not-reliable site can be reliable for some purposes. Whitelisting the site main page should be okay, for sure. Spam blacklist volunteers should be careful about making content judgments. --Abd 20:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Abd, this site was abused, I did not make any content judgments in this case. We could consider a more specific rule, though local whitelisting of an appropriate site also works (and is likely to pass on e.g. en.wikipedia). Abd, assume good faith, also on blacklist volunteers. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
youtu.be
youtu.be
\byoutu\.be\b
Please remove this as it's the only way how to add Youtube videos on Wikipedia pages. I have no idea how it managed to appear on the global blacklist. Editors on Czech Wikipedia have complained that they can't add links to relevant Youtube videos as Youtube now supports only these urls with domain hack youtu.be. To understand what I mean, please see any Youtube video and then click "share" option. You'll find just url like "youtu.be/video code", not "youtube.com/watch/video code" anymore like how it got used to be before.
Not all Youtube videos are illegal and if somebody adds such a link, we remove it. A lot of subjects provide their official channels there, upload there their videos on which they own author rights to and these can have high educational value.
Thank you,
Wespecz 15:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC), Czech Wikipedia sysop
- No, it is not, it is a redirect to youtube.com, which is not blacklisted, and which should be used. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Troubleshooting and problems
|
|
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above). |
Discussion
|
|
This section is for discussion of Spam blacklist issues among other users. |
Replacement for Eagle's cross-wiki linksearch tool
URL: http://wikipediatools.appspot.com/linksearch.jsp, example: [13]. The source code is hosted here. Let me know if there are any problems or if you would like any other tools. Bear in mind that this runs on Google App Engine, which is subject to these limitations and has no connection to the LinkWatcher database. MER-C 07:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Done - More than one of these would be nice, actually. Kylu 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Dealing with https://
Came across this case, posting direct paypal links to its secure url. Two questions, how to blacklist https:// links and how does one search for https:// urls? --Hu12 17:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- HTTPS domains are already covered by existing blacklisting practices. As for linksearching, Special:Linksearch/https://*.paypal.com works as expected. Now to combine the two... MER-C 11:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- The https search has had me baffled for years..Thanks. Would be nice if they were combined..--Hu12 15:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Seeking consultation
A significant amount of analysis and experimentation has happened over at the English Wikipedia's blacklist discussion page, resulting in identifying an acknowledged problem with its spam blacklist without a solution in regex. I am hoping there is regex expertise here that could review the details and suggest a solution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#markets.com for the discussion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ingles#company.27s_website_is_blacklisted for the background; the latter includes confirmation by the admin who introduced the problematic regex that the current regex needs to be fixed. Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.166 11:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)