Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Herbythyme (talk | contribs) at 14:37, 22 August 2007 (Unprotected "Talk:Spam blacklist": archiving done). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Herbythyme in topic Proposed additions
Shortcut:
WM:SPAM
The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist. 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|652502#section_name}}

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

Worthy of note: en:Wikipedia:Grief

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 16 years ago112 comments30 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.

independencia.net

Cross-wiki spam. 168 links in the 57 largest wikis.

--Jorunn 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have cleaned up the many, many links in the other, smaller Wikipedias (those that aren't in the top 57). Due to schedule constraints, I'll leave it to someone else to remove the links in the top 57. --A. B. (talk)
es, fr, de and en hasn't been cleaned up yet, the others are cleaned up. --Jorunn 10:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done - Andre Engels 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is the web site of a party. Why do you remove this link from the article dedicated to that party? 84.50.240.140 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
It will not be possible to save any edits to the articles until the blacklisted link is removed. (The articles about the party seems to me to have been written by the same person/s who added all the links to the website of the party, and they might not be as unbiased as one would want.) --Jorunn 19:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Jorunn, Why isn't it possible, doesn't this seem to be trying to kill a fly with a cannon-type action?
==Was this an error?== (see below, comment bout bindependencia.net -)
Anyways, if not an error --as the person from Estonia commented above-- doesn't this procedure of eliminating this respected website from its own Party name seem extreme?
If an error, is it because of this:
As I was told in the alarm-notice, I had a look at the spam list and actually found a similar link to the one mentioned above -only with an initial b added to it - so: bindependencia.net Could you kindly do something not to get the above mentionned independencia.net-link mixed up with the bindependencia.net-link?
Best regards,
---WikiInWikiOut 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
This domain was spammed to dozens of Wikipedias and to articles totally unrelated to anything to do with Puerto Rico. In the case of the links I removed, where the link was in an article on the actual political party, I stripped out the "http://" but left www.independencia.net for readers to see. They won't have a live link, but they can always paste the address into their browser to visit the site. Elsewhere, I deleted the links. I think Jorunn made a good call in asking this domain be blacklisted. In terms of cross-wiki spam, it was probably one of the twenty worst to be blacklisted here so far in 2007. --A. B. (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
If one looks at the Estonian article about the party one can see that the link was in both the infobox and in a link section. I removed the link section and stripped the link in the infobox to just www.independencia.net. I did not see the need for any web adress to be mentioned twice in that short article.
The reason I nominated your link to the spam blacklist was 200+ links to independencia.net all over Wikipedia, specifically those that was added to the articles about direct democracy yesterday, like this one in the Swahili Wikipedia.
I do not know the case of the bindependencia.net spam, but if it is worse than the independencia.net case they sure have kept themselves busy. --Jorunn 00:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is no such bindependencia.net, \bindependencia\.net is the regex used to blacklist independencia.net. --Brownout(msg) 00:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be somthing very fishy here, User:Brownout, don't you think?

Why has the Puerto Rican Independence Party's Wikipedia page been persistently "cleansed" of even the www.independencia.net regardless of whether the link is stripped or not? Also, have you seen the vandalism attacks this Wiki article and its fraternal pages in other languages have consistently suffered?

Have you seen that apparently they are trying to add the Puerto Rican Independence Party's website (independencia.net) to various Wiki pages so it gets "blacklisted"?

Can you please investigate this suspicious matter?

Thank you,

Gogggggle 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why was this website blacklisted, this doesn't seem to fit the spam definition by any stretch of the imagination, isn't that so?

66.50.202.162 22:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anyways, do you know why someone eliminated the website link from the Puerto Rican Independence Party's Wiki article if your objection is to the Puerto Rico links?

Anyways, regarding another issue, if someone added the links to the Puerto Rico Wiki (with whatever intention), isn't that completely valid. It is a government-sanctioned instrumentality and there are many other links to other Puerto Rico government instrumentalities in the English Wiki on Puerto Rico.

I really don't see this as Spam, do you? Isn't someone being unfair with that link?

BeautifulFeminine 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anyone was being unfair. Here's some data:
Sample articles (there were 168 links just in the 57 largest Wikipedias alone, plus many more across the 200 or so smaller Wikipedias:
Sample IP accounts with their edit histories across Wikipedias:
Observations:
  1. No talk page discussion by the person adding all these links. No edit summary used. No engagement or attempts at consensus with other editors within each language community.
  2. Numerous links added across many Wikipedias in a short period of time.
  3. Link description was always in English or Spanish, not the language of the Wikipedia spammed.
  4. No other content was added besides the links themselves.
  5. No links were added to sites offering alternate viewpoints. Independencia.net does not offer alternate viewpoints.
  6. In the smaller Wikipedias, sometimes one of these links might be one of perhaps just 50 or 100 total external links in the entire encyclopedia.
  7. As with rival sites, independencia.net is a non-neutral, advocacy site. It's a very appropriate link for an article about the party itself. None of these are very "encyclopedic" for other articles. Should we add all of these links anyway? or just the links for the two big parties that usually win 95% of the vote?
  8. Rival sites (the other Puerto Rican parties):
    1. pnp.org: 5 links across all 250+ Wikipedias
    2. porpuertorico.com: 5 links across all 250+ Wikipedias
    3. ppdpr.net: 8 links across all 250+ Wikipedias
  9. Where I encountered a link in an article on the party itself, I stripped the "http://" off, disabling the link, software-wise, but still leaving it for readers to see.
  10. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm or a soapbox
--A. B. (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Dear A. B.:
I agree with BeautifulFeminine, there seems to be arguments pulled out of context in your arguments, A. B.
It strikes me that somebody who has the interest and time to explain to you why this has seemed so outrageous may go point by point to explain why your arguments don't necessarilly hold water if you scratch the veneer a little bit.
For example, you talked to her about the Socialist International page, but you forgot to put that in context, such as that the Puerto Rican Independence Party happens to be an integral part of the Socialist International, it's webpage seems to carry many articles about the Socialist International; also, the President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party happens to be the Honorary President of the Socialist International, so I would see many potential reasons for that link to be cited; it's all about context. Also, you could go to the extreme of arguing that some people added links without the ideal care for explaining the edit, etc. but that doesn't seem to have generated blacklisting in thousands of practically thousands of other countless links on Wikipedia.
Other important arguments that may be explained more thoroughly by this directly affected and/or with better understanding of this matter:
Most of the 50some Wikipedias you cite had a link to that party's website either from the Wiki about precisely that party or on the section of official websites associated to Puerto Rico, its government or its government's dependencies.
Links to other alternative points of view were apparently added just the same! Just look at the links to the Puerto Rico government site (allegedly occupied by two other parties).
You neglected to say that the Puerto Rican Independence Party seems to be --by all the inquires I performed-- the only political party with an English & Spanish language website, and the only one of the parties in Puerto Rico that are a member of the largest conglomeration of political parties in the world, that it seems to participate in international summits and meetings way above-and-beyond the other two principal parties; doesn't this seem to offer important context to the arguments you presented?
You say that the other parties obtain the 95% of the remaining vote but neglect to mention that theirt two at-larg legislators (I think Senator and Representative) are allegedly the ones who obtain by-far the most votes in all of Puerto Rico; doesn't this nuance your argument about vote percentages, even if that argument were to hold some water?
You don't mention that the Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico's website (Spanish-exclusive website, that is, explains on its cover that it has been offline and in construction for an extended amount of time.
You don't mention that the independence party of Puerto Rico has various articles about direct democracy and its particular understanding of democratic self-determination that could explain links to the Direct Democracy Wiki-Entry.
The same thing seems to apply to slavery and the political ramifications of hip-hop and other urban music spin-offs that the Independence party in question seems to have been related to directly or indirectly; did you check what the links in question were offering as context for what you have offered as arguments?
You talk about percent of votes but neglect to remark that an encyclopedia isn't necessarily going to establish entries at the same order of who wins what percent of elections; has this measuring stick been used against other Wiki-link additions? You neglect to say that this party is apparently BY-DEFINITION more internationally-focused and projecting towards international contacts, precisely because it is an independence party; that might put into context your remarks about the statistics you provide about other political parties in Puerto Rico.
You explain that in cases where you found a link to the party, you merely removed the http:// suffix, but from what I have been told and I myself have been able to see, various of the Puerto Rico Independence Wiki's were completely stripped of any allusion to its website, including the English-Language wiki on the PIPR party, which until yesterday was stripped of the link stemming from the same page that expounds on that party, i.e. the Wiki entry on the PIPR.
How can you say that this may not be a case of unfair selectivity and out-of-context argumentation?
I sincerely hope to hear from you and receive your input because I think this matter has adversely affected other Wiki-Entries that have lost the enriching information-filled possibilities that are offered by people searching for more information and alternative points of view! At first glance, and after a more thorough review, I agree with the gentelmen and ladies that have written to questio whether this was a mistake or a case of assuming spam when it doesn't seem to fit the extreme-extent test (of a particular website link abuse) that should be taken into account before Blacklisting.
I think that a Reconsideration is in order. Again, on the basis of what has been discussed and the product of my own investigation (and I admit I am not an expert on Puerto Rico or the PIPR), I am awaiting your pondered response because this is important to all Wiki entries and future precedents on this wonderful free-information portal that is Wikipedia and the rest of the Wikimedia portals,

SuomiHombrougui 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe this sock puppet case of editors on the English Wikipedia should be taken into account too when concidering this case. --Jorunn 10:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow, I see that one of the most prolific spammers also was repeatedly warned about vandalizing the English Wikipedia. That's pretty bad and it puts a whole new complexion on this discussion:
--A. B. (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree, I think some people are taking very lightly what the terms "Spam" and "Vandalizing" mean. This seems to have been stretched to try to apply these terms to cases that are really not in conformity with the severity of what those concepts signify in Wikipedia.

This case and various others should definately be reconsidered.

Gogggggle 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, other than Gogggggle, none of the accounts complaining about this blacklisting have participated in any Wikimedia project in any language other than to comment here.
Gogggggle on just started editing on en.wikipedia; his edits include some unreferenced, POV changes to Puerto Rico-related articles[1][2] and the creation of three new categories:
--A. B. (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
There's a big difference between sloppyness and actual spamming or vandalizing, so why confuse them and loose credibility?~
BeautifulFeminine 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you add more than 200 links to your website crosswiki by mere sloppyness obviously something has to be done to stop you. --Jorunn 21:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wait a minute A. B. (and Jorunn), out of the 71 or so examples of supposed SPAM related to this website (added as examples by A. B. above), a whopping 31 refer, either to Puerto Rico, or to ...guess what... the Wikipedia entry on the Puerto Rican Independence Party itself. Most of all of the rest of the links I've seen had a rational link to the subject of the respective Wiki entry.

If 31 of the above 71 cited are so clearly valid, why do you expect us to seriously consider the rest of your arguments.

Why are you jeapardizing the trustworthiness of this Blacklist by implementing trigger happy questionable calls without a consensus based decision making process? Turning the Blacklist into a forum accusable of Witch Hunting only serves to hurt Wikipedia's value, usefulness and reputation.

Please take the appropriate actions to rethink this and other questionable calls.

Yours truly,

12.45.230.3 03:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

What I want to add as a follow-up comment to A. B. and Jorunn's fiasco is that it certainly seems to be a travesty and it is unacceptable under the definition and rules established for defining spam.
Nontheless, this is --after all-- only a "Proposed Blacklist", right?
So, I say, before piling on to demonstrate how this is one of the worse examples --IF NOT THE WORST-- of all the occasional editors' "jumping-of-the-guns", we should recognize that everyone is human and can make honest mistakes as they did with this independencia.net site.
That said, this is a golden opportunity to investigate who elects persons like Jorunn and A. B., who supervises and oversees that they follow the rules on the REAL AND TRUE definition of SPAMMING (i.e., extreme, out of control, etc.), and who sees to it that they don't overstep their boundaries as they clearly did here.
It's easy to point to an obvious mistake such as the one Jorunn and A. B. commited here, but what we can learn from Jorunn and A. B.'s mistake is what we should have in mind the importance of supervising the supervisors. It is quite possible they were overeager. Also some of their arguments display some ignorance and narrow-mindendness when it comes to explaining their logic and attempts at justifying their actions. Even though that's not excusable, it happens all the time and good people should have a chance at improving at what they do. It's a tough job they have to do and anybody can make a mistake as they have done so here. So, let's criticize them when they make a mistake, but let's not lose perspective that we need to use every step of the way to build a better, more user-friendly Wikipedia that's sticks to the rules and guidelines that can continue to make this a great and fun place to learn and work in.
Let this serve as a heads-up not only to A. B. and Jorunn but to everyone else out here that it's everyone of us' responsibility to learn from mistakes to improve Wikipedia day-by-day.
It's in our hands, let's help build the Wikipedia road one brick at a time; it's up to Jorunn, A. B. and any other responsible person to correct this mistake.

KeepingEditorsHonest 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why haven't Jorunn and A. B. made ammends for their sloppy, trigger-happy blacklisting?

MarketsSquare 00:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could A. B., Jorunn or anyone else explain why, if this is a ***PROPOSED*** addition to the blacklist (as in many other blatant cases) they went ahead and took action before the appropriate discussion?

Please answer those questions A. B. and Jorunn, and anyone else interested.

Thanks.

MarketsSquare 18:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it looks probable that a site will be blacklisted, it's good to try to clean up the links before' blacklisting. Otherwise, we end up with, in the case of independencia.net, hundreds of articles that are locked up from editing until the links are removed. So someone wanting to edit the Opium Wars article on the Chinese Wikipedia would have had to figure out the problem and fix it. Unfortunately, the spam filter's notice screen is not always helpful in telling editors what the problem is or how to fix it. For instance, I just did the same thing with another set of domains I listed 18 hours ago: Talk:Spam blacklist#bellazon.org spam.--A. B. (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Your arguments don't seem to make any sense, A. B.

What does this discussion serve in creating a consensus-based decision process if you discuss it as an afterthought?

Where is the consistency between trying to defend and uphold Wikipedia principles, policy and rules when you flaunt left and right showing how much disregard you have for these consensus based procedures?

Can you actually pose these arguments with a straight face?

KeepingEditorsHonest 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear A. B.,
I am wondering why you haven't responded to many of the ideas and questions expressed in this forum (directed at you).
Regards,
Hypathia
Hypathia 06:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Reference:
--A. B. (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Dear A. B.,
I did not understand your response. Could you elaborate or explain what you meant by your short response?
-Hypathia
Hypathia 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
People I am responsible for reporting Wiki En Wiki's (his original account) behaviour for a first time in the English Wikipedia, please note that he ignores all warnings given to him, actually he has created a significant number of sockpuppets to evade his blocks even after he was notified that he was confirmed as a sockpuppeteer, is there a way to blacklist this link on all the articles in the Wikis excluding the ones referering to the Puerto Rican Independence party? PS in case nobody noticed this already this name (WikiInWikiOut) that was used by a user above is one of the names Wiki En Wiki has used to evade blocks in the en. wiki.-Caribbean H.Q. 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • reser

Concise update on where this request is up to? Can I archive it? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Spammer in en wiki

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.163.37.175 user was warned but still keep to add yours websites (check w:Telescope historic):

  • www.binoculars-uk .org.uk
  • www.uk-metal-detectors .co.uk
  • www.uk-telescopes .co.uk
  • www.go-kart .org.uk
  • www.airguns-online .co.uk
  • www.orbital-welding .org.uk

Is there a way to block these sites? Carlosguitar 00:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please, do not use direct links, or this page will be locked up when they will be blacklisted. Thanks. --Brownout(msg) 01:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment Since your request is concerned with only English Wikipedia, you are better to ask an Enwiki sysop to blacklist those websites locally at first? --Aphaia 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
These are a recurring problem dating back to 2005. Since the en.wikipedia hasn't decided on any rules or procedures for managing its blacklist (and most en.wikipedia admins don't yet understand blacklisting or spam), can you perhaps go ahead and list these? Here are a few more sample edit histories:
  1. en:Special:Contributions/213.218.238.88
  2. en:Special:Contributions/82.163.144.17
  3. en:Special:Contributions/82.163.34.215
  4. en:Special:Contributions/82.163.44.223
  5. en:Special:Contributions/213.218.227.44
  6. en:Special:Contributions/213.218.229.89
  7. en:Special:Contributions/62.41.132.230
  8. en:Special:Contributions/82.163.125.169
  9. en:Special:Contributions/82.163.137.245
  10. en:Special:Contributions/82.163.183.11
  11. en:Special:Contributions/82.163.189.105
  12. en:Special:Contributions/82.163.91.115
Here are 3 additional Evergreen Internet Services domains:
  • bb-gun.org.uk
  • holidaycottage4u.co.uk
  • uk-holiday-cottages.net
--A. B. (talk)
Reference:
--A. B. (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry no, I am not an enwiki sysop, I cannot therefore list them. --Aphaia 06:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
My point was, can someone list them here in lack of consensus (or even discussion) yet on the role of local vs. global blacklisting? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

library.cshl.edu, students.hsc.unt.edu, students.hsc.unt.edu, www.e.kth.se, www.psfc.mit.edu

The following discussion is closed.

More spam of a similar nature to those sites blocked here

Examples 1, 2, 3

The Puppeteer 03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done There is no evidence Wikimedia websites are affected. --Aphaia 04:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This blacklist is used by lots of external wiki's to Wikimedia that use MediaWiki.
Here's some other websites affected by this spam. 1, 2, 3
The Puppeteer 02:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agreed - however this is Wikimedia Foundation's blacklist and unless Wikimedia Wikis are being affected I believe that it is outside our scope to deal with such requests. You can easily place any you want in your local blacklist? --Herby talk thyme 11:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to get in an argument with the mods about this, because you guys do a great job here, but on the Mediawiki Extension page it says this.
"The primary source for a MediaWiki-compatible blacklist file is the Wikimedia spam blacklist on Meta-Wiki, at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist."
By default the spam blacklist on all Mediawiki wiki's that install this extension is set to this blacklist. The description goes on to mention "You can suggest modifications to the blacklist at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist."
In fact, on our installation the local blacklist doesn't work and likely won't until we upgrade php, which is an enourmous job on our server which we are trying to schedule at the moment. I know that this isn't really your problem, but there has never been a problem in the past on having widespread spam added to this blacklist. It seems that this particular spammer seems to be avoiding the wikimedia wiki's so as not to get added to this blacklist, which seems to be working. That does however leave the smaller wiki's that have historically relied on this blacklist out in the cold somewhat and subject to ongoing spam.
If the final decision is to not add this type of widespread spam to the wikimedia blacklist, then I can respect that. We'll battle on the best we can and stop making submissions to this page. The main reason that we take the time to go through the spam and submit it in the first place, is to try to help out others who are combatting the same thing.
Regards
The Puppeteer 03:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • reset

Just to say your comment has made me think & I will do just that. Bear in mind Aphaia & I are a bit new at this. I'm going to read round some of the archived stuff but if you see anything you feel would be relevant feel free to leave me a message on my talk page - cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

nedcruise.info

Persistently spammed on nl.wikipedia and en.wikipedia:

References:

--A. B. (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

  1. I don't know how to get someone blocked on other Wikipedias. Can you please block nl:Gebruiker:Haco? I note that he continued spamming nl.wikipedia after being warned and blocked on en.wikipedia[3]
  2. On en.wikipedia, admins seldom block an IP or an IP range for more than a few weeks. In this case, an en.wikipedia admin actually blocked the IP for 6 months.
  3. In my experience, someone this persistent will simply reset their modem and/or get a new user name.
Nevertheless, it's your call as an admin and I'll support however you want to handle this. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Among us, there are several meta-nlwiki admins including Andre Engels. They will handle this user better than me inactive there. Also, I noticed your request were a bit old, the situation may vary since then. If they think global blacklisting is better regarding the uptodate situation, I'll be easily persuaded. --Aphaia 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • reset

Still active? Updates? If not I'll archive it - cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Caique spam

Edit histories:

Domains:

  • caiquecrazy.us.tt
  • caiquecrazy.spreebb.com

OTRS tickets:

~Kylu (u|t) 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you let me know (off line if appropriate) what the issue with the OTRS ticket is? (of course you can put them on the list yourself now :-)) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

More Universe Daily (Wayne Smith) spam

Here are some more from our favorite spammer/vandal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily:

  • myspace.com/universedaily
  • ericapacker.com

Thanks in advance, Antandrus 04:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

sova-center,ru

The following discussion is closed.

Please add sova-center.ru to spam black list. It is being readded after removal attempts from several articles [4],[5],[6]. Also, that site is advocating racial hatred towards Russian people and is offensive. The leaders of that center have been indicted by Russian authorities for covering up ethnic mafia's gang members.--Ram2006 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done - unconvinced by this one - re-list if persistent or real evidence --Herby talk thyme 10:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fiorano Software spam

The following discussion is closed.

This has been an ongoing PR effort on Wikipedia for over 18 months involving both spam links and spam articles.

Domain:

  • fiorano.com

Accounts:

Links also appear on German, French and Chinese Wikipedias.

Spam articles created as blatant advertising and deleted by Wikipedia administrators:

(Note how spammer overlooked commas when cut-and-pasting articles.)

Reference:

--A. B. (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reviewed, cross wiki & Done --Herby talk thyme 11:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

yourglobaltv.com

Cross-wiki spam. I've removed links from 6 wikis, mainly from HBO and MTV pages: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Please, add to the spam blacklist. --Priortheir 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is this still active? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


indianairports.blogspot.com

Significant spamming of this address on various articles, both related to Indian airports and general mapping subjects, even some categories. Website is nothing but a map of locations, contains no links or other useful data.

Edit histories:
-- Huntster T • @ • C 06:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

stickycarpet.com

Edit histories:

Reference:

--A. B. (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#stickycarpet.com
MB
—The preceding comment was added by 194.203.91.252 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Please proceed with my earlier blacklisting request based on this admission from the site-owner and the further discussion and links at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#stickycarpet.com (permanent link).
Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Response at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#stickycarpet.com
MB
—The preceding comment was added by 213.123.37.252 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

canurl.com

The following discussion is closed.

Another URL shortener/redirect site similar to tinyurl.com.[13]
--A. B. (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aphaia, there are currently none of these links on the 57 largest wikipedias
URL redirect sites traditionally have always been blocked on meta as soon as they're discovered, sort of like open proxies. They can be used to bypass the blacklist and there's no way to know it's happening. Like an open proxy, I strongly recommend blocking preemptively.
If editors want to add innocent links using these domains, they can just instead use the expanded link. For instance:
  • http:// www.geocities.com/reallylong/subdomain/johndoe.html
may have been shortened to:
  • http:// johndoe.tinyurl.com
An editor can always just use the longer domain -- unless it's blacklisted.
Typically, 90% of the links added with URL redirects are benign but the other 10% are usually to our worst blacklisted sites -- hate sites, attack sites, sites maintained by egregious POV pushers and/or banned users.
Having said all this, I'm unaware if this is written down as a policy or a guideline anywhere.
--16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense - I'll go see if I can find previous discussions to support the idea - cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - precedent seems to have been set a while ago --Herby talk thyme 08:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

t35\.com, 125mb\.com, freehostia\.com, freewebpage\.org, freewebtown\.com, homeblock\.com, freeweb7\.com

The following discussion is closed.

Spammed the sonikmatter wiki 1, 2, 3.

Also other websites spammed eg 1, 2, 3 - freehostia links

The Puppeteer 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

And again with new sub-domains of the above domains.
1
The Puppeteer 01:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Comment would be that to blacklist the top level domains might be a bit extreme/controversial - sub domains better? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, there are probably a hundred or sub-domains changing with batch of posts. I can go back through the history if you want to do it that way, but there are lots of them. Let me know if you want be to list them here.

The Puppeteer 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done - sorry but these are non foundation wikis that are affected and so outside Meta's scope --Herby talk thyme 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gambling blog spammer

Hi all - my first time reporting something on the meta, so I am not exactly sure how the process works. At any rate, over the past month or so, there have been many spam edits to the English wikipedia advertising the gambling site usa-players-accepted.blogspot.com - the edits come from a wide range of IP addresses. Here is one such recent edit. Can we block these guys? ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 14:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the report. To go on the overall spam blacklist evidence of cross wiki spamming is usually required (not just one wiki). If there are issues with spam on en.wp then the local blacklist can be used? --Herby talk thyme 15:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if there is a local blacklist but I will check and see. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is one (on all media wikis I think) but getting anyone to do anything may be an issue. Of course if you find some cross wiki spam.... Let us know --Herby talk thyme 18:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

biblewalks.com

Added by multiple accounts to multiple articles since January 2007. Semi protection does not work as multiple articles targeted and single purpose registered accounts are used. Sample diffs[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].

There are a few good faith links on en., but none are used as sources. I will remove those links if this request is approved. There are also 23 links on he. (Hebrew) and one on zh. (Chinese). I don't have the language skills to edit these Wikipedias (is that the plural for Wikipedia?). -- SiobhanHansa 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you please give us links of spam evidences on zhwiki and hewiki? Thanks! --Aphaia 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi Aphaia - I didn't mean to imply that the links on the other wikis were spam, I don't know whether they were added in good faith or not. I can try to do some research tomorrow. I was simply trying to give info about the current impact of blacklisting the site. -- SiobhanHansa 03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
OK - The zhwiki link is a good faith addition. The hewiki links appear to be the work of two users: Rotem300 contributions and David11 contributions, whose only edits to main space appear to be to add the link. (Please note this investigation was done without the benefit of being able to read Hebrew, though as you'll see, the edits look pretty obvious). -- SiobhanHansa 09:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I too found that the links was added on he.wikipedia by these two users, David11 and Rotem300, except one link that was added by IP 84.94.96.134, who has also added the link on en.wikipedia.
--Jorunn 10:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your information, after hearing there is a good faith editing, I am inclining not to list this url for now. I rather recommend you to ask local admins to deal with them (enwiki & hewiki), since those websites are likely to be spammed massively. But regarding the info provided, I hesitate to surpress it globally. --Aphaia 04:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the language skills to post on hewiki - hopefully another poster here who does could follow up with them. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 10:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Most of my work on wikipedia and meta has involved spam-mitigation. SiobhanHansa's dilemma is why we have a meta blacklist. One simple action here fixes the problem. The alternative is to have SiobhanHansa track down a Hebrew speaker, then get him/her to communicate with a Hebrew admin, etc. In many cases, such efforts just aren't going to get made by someone in that chain.
Additionally, pushing blacklisting out to the individual projects highlights the fact that it's very hard to find out what other projects have been spammed. We have one fairly new tool at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/linksearch to search the largest Wikipedias. It misses almost 200 other Wikipedias + all >500 other Wikimedia projects. We have another tool with which to check an IP's cross-project edits at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php but for reasons I don't understand, about half the time it doesn't work right (I don't know if it's a tool problem or a database problem). When we say something has only been spammed to a particular project, we really don't know if that's true or not. For instance, there are 1000s of external links on en.wikiquote; longtime spam-fighters from wikipedia will recognize some familiar domains. Until we have much better tools for tracking spam Wikimedia-wide, I think we need to keep using meta -- if a link is inappropriate and has been spammed uncontrollably on one project we should default to blacklisting it across all projects.
I think the local blacklists are best for cases where an otherwise appropriate link is spammed uncontrollably on one project but other projects still wish to use it. There was an Italian art site for instance that did this a while back (I don't remember the domain). It was encyclopedic, but the site owner's persistence in spamming it everywhere across one project became intolerable. It was blacklisted here, but then other projects started complaining. It would have been useful to swap it from the meta list to the local list in this case.
Getting back to biblewalks, can we reconsider and blacklist biblewalks at meta? If you look at he:שיחת משתמש:Rotem300, you'll see this spammer's been getting warnings on he.wikipedia as well using multiple accounts.[26][27][28][29]
If you look at the one zh.wikipedia link, it was imported wholesale along with a lot of other material from en.wikipedia.[30] This sort of x-wiki plagiarism is a great way to build an encyclopedia (en.wikipedia should do more of this) but it does have the side effect of propagating spam and I see this frequently when investigating x-wiki spam. Nobody at zh.wikipedia appears to have made a conscious decision to add this one particular link.
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • reset

An issue I see here is "Is the site "wanted" by any of the projects?". If so global blacklisting would actually be harmful and local blacklisting would be better. That said if say 1 wiki wanted the links they could use the local whitelist to accomplish that? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's no indication these links were ever wanted on he.wikipedia. One was passively imported with a bunch of other en.wikipedia material into zh.wikipedia. There may be one or two good faith additions on en.wikipedia, but the consensus there is that this is an uncontrollable problem and needs blacklisting. I think this is a classic case of cross-wiki spam. --A. B. (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nikitin links

The following discussion is closed.

Edit histories:


Domain:

  • ceilingworld.com
  • findsignal.com
  • fineroof.com
  • freemobilefun.net
  • hairremovalarea.com
  • hosearea.com
  • insulationhelp.com
  • ledplace.com
  • localtreatment.com
  • movable-wall.com
  • nicebath.com
  • playground-world.com
  • roomflooring.com
  • thebestinsulation.com
  • titaniumarea.com
  • weldingarea.com

Reference:

--A. B. (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seems only weldingarea.com was spammed to multiple wikis, but I am not sure two wikis are enough to list a site to this blacklist. Other links seem to me more suitable for being dealt by local admins. --Aphaia 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unless I'm mistaken there are quite a few more domains listed on the Spam project page than there are here? I'll not disagree with Aphaia but some of the domains listed there don't look all that useful to the project --Herby talk thyme 11:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
None of these domains are useful and none meet the requirements of either the Reliable Sources or External Links Guidelines. The domains I did not list have not appeared ... yet ... on simple or en.wikipedia (that is, to my knowledge), Given the spammer's persistence in adding his domains above, I don't see why we can't expect to see some of these others in the future -- that is unless Google drops its AdSense program or hell freezes over:
  • allmyringtones.com
  • allphonegames.com
  • architectspot.com
  • arturnikitin.com
  • bargainhammocks.com
  • benedict-xvi-pope.com
  • best-mortgage-quotes.com
  • best-sex-enhancers.com
  • best-sunless-tanning.com
  • bobbleheadfinder.com
  • breast-enhancement-help.com
  • buy-cruise.com
  • cell-phone-wallpapers.com
  • cellularservicehelp.com
  • cheap-playstation.com
  • cheap-x-box.com
  • closet-world.com
  • eroticsexylingerie.com
  • findfurnace.com
  • freecurrencycalculator.com
  • freedesktopfun.com
  • get-degree-online.com
  • get-fast-money.com
  • getaircompressors.com
  • gypsumus.com
  • hairextensionhelp.com
  • hybridcartoday.com
  • kitchen-remodeling-help.com
  • lastcasket.com
  • letmeconvert.com
  • mylogoland.com
  • mytinybaby.com
  • mytinyphone.com
  • mywifiphones.com
  • online-auto-quotes.com
  • online-car-quotes.com
  • order-drugs-online.com
  • phone-screensavers.com
  • poolsarea.com
  • rastagear.com
  • realfiberglass.com
  • realtruetones.com
  • recreational-vehicles-insurance.com
  • seektires.com
  • skinarea.com
  • stressrelievertools.com
  • thecladdaghrings.com
  • videoclipcards.com
  • window-tinting-info.com
I should note that I am only aware of tools on en.wikipedia that will let you determine if a link has been present in the past (2007 only), so I don't know if these have been on other Wikipedias at other times, then been removed.
I'd blacklist all of them. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
However - as far as this page is concerned this is a local blacklist issue as the evidence is that it affects just en wp. --Herby talk thyme 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
simple wp also. --A. B. (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cross wiki & Done --Herby talk thyme 10:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

islamhouse.com

Crosswiki spam. There are 46 mainspace links in the top 57 Wikipedia. There are 7 links in en.wikipedia and 8 in ar.wikipedia. These have not been added by the same IP that have added the link to many other Wikipedia, they can be perfectly ok. But the link has been spammed to many smaller wikis.

IP adding the link:

Sample edits:

--Jorunn 11:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jorunn - does this domain look valid anywhere do you think? (you say they can be perfectly ok) --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


Multiple spam sites on multiple wiki pages

The following discussion is closed.

There were 20+ sites spammed across multiple pages on my wiki. Please look at my wiki changes page on August 16th to see the affected pages. There are way too many URLs to add to my custom blacklist... Thanks. -68.189.221.83 03:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the absence of there being evidence of spamming across wikis I'm afraid the local blacklist is the best answer - thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
So I have to enter over 100 URLs because you won't? Looks like this spam blacklist is not the answer for spam prevention. Thanks. -- 68.189.221.83 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not an admin here, so I can't blacklist anything. But I make a lot of blacklist requests here. Comments:
  1. You're chewing out a volunteer admin, Herby, not someone who's providing you with some paid service.
  2. If you don't care enough to sort out a list of spam domains, why should you expect some volunteer here to do it for you?
  3. See Spam blacklist/About:
    "The spam blacklist exists primarily to control widespread spamming of Wikimedia Foundation projects."
  4. I checked several of your domains to see if they appeared on any of the 57 largest Wikipedia projects. They do not:
    1. amohseni.info[31]
    2. ashythro.info[32]
    3. bloprofeldi.info[33]
    4. chaba.info[34]
    5. davte.info[35]
    6. helmed.info[36]
    7. kinunia.cn[37]
    8. nobinters.org[38]
    9. psisemiya.com[39]
    10. saibso.org[40]
    11. ustall.org[41]
As suggested, you can get an admin on your wiki to put these on your local Mediawiki blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I second this request. The domains listed immediately above in A.B.'s comment also spammed the sonikmatter.com wiki 1, 2, 3
The Puppeteer 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • reset

I take exception to You're chewing out a volunteer admin, Herby. That is exactly what I am. The link provided affected one wiki. Without evidence the sites should be blacklisted on that wiki. With further evidence I'll go look when I have time but I would ask you to remember that we are all volunteers here. Having a go at me is not an encouragement for me to deal with anything! --Herby talk thyme 07:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Herby, I was not directing my comment above at you but rather 68.189.221.83. I should have set off your name with parentheses rather than commas:
  • "You're chewing out a volunteer admin (Herby) not someone who's providing you with some paid service."
I am very sorry about the confusion I caused. --A. B. (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done: since it is not relevant to Wikimedia wikis, for now. --Aphaia 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

jjgo.com.tw

This domain spam some phamacy related article in Chinese Wikipedia: [42], [43], [44], [45] --Ellery 12:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it is all "zh" spam then it really should go on the local blacklist (if more extensive then let us know) cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

ifrance\.com

The following discussion is closed.

Spammed the sonikmatter wiki 1, 2, 3

Other Mediawiki Wiki's that have been spammed. 1, 2

The Puppeteer 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

ifrance.com is a big hosting service with hundreds of legitimate links on various wikipedias:
I suggest blacklisting only the offending subdomains if blacklisting is required. --A. B. (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
There are hundreds of subdomains. I'll get started on going back through the page history on our wiki, but the subdomains seem to be different for every single spammy edit.
The Puppeteer 02:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here's the first set of ifrance.com sub-domains
The Number afterwards indicates the number of specific spam links posted on the two pages examined so far.
  • akmokanzen\.ifrance\.com 20
  • broadwaylili\.ifrance\.com 33
  • demurediablo\.ifrance\.com 38
  • deviantrus\.ifrance\.com 27
  • girlwho-is\.ifrance\.com 34
  • highbulp\.ifrance\.com 38
  • igaros\.ifrance\.com 32
  • jdawsona\.ifrance\.com 28
  • kalian42\.ifrance\.com 25
  • lordsander\.ifrance\.com 34
  • lovereceier\.ifrance\.com 31
  • noxuhax\.ifrance\.com 28
  • oiyaoi\.ifrance\.com 31
  • singaporepets\.ifrance\.com 31
  • speedofsoun\.ifrance\.com 15
  • tat-ooin\.ifrance\.com 28
  • tizolaa\.ifrance\.com 37
  • toofarfrommaybe\.ifrance\.com 30
  • voltia\.ifrance\.com 24
  • yeeden\.ifrance\.com 34
The Puppeteer 03:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for the research, extensive spamming & Done --Herby talk thyme 10:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

meinliedfuerdich.com

The following discussion is closed.

porn spam, se http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:W/index.php&rcid=385819 Yann 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Added by Yann to the list --Herby talk thyme 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

gu.ma

The following discussion is closed.

Another URL redirect domain similar to tinyurl.com.[46] Glinki.com, an affiliated site, is already blacklisted here.:

  • gu.ma

--A. B. (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - precedent seems to have been set a while ago --Herby talk thyme 08:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments7 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.

myfendi.com

There were 3 or 4 links included by the usual socks (the 110 more deep crosswiki spam domains case), but the domain apparently changed owners since then. It's currently registered to the 'real' Fendi corporation and a simple redirect to fendi.com. No longer an immediate spam danger. Femto 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Plausible. Can you show any evidence of the change of owner in the domain registries? I agree it looks legit now, I just want to be sure we're not being had. Thanks, JzG 21:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • Current whois lists Adele Fendi, 00189 Roma, Italy, same physical location of the en:Fendi company. (The earlier spamsites are all registered to someone called Lim, based around New York, Philadelphia, and the Philippines) Femto 16:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

plasmatics.com

The following discussion is closed.

I'm working on the Plasmatics article, and I need to list the official web site for references. For some reason, it's blacklisted. ---69.249.228.69 03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm still waiting on this one, and can someone PLEASE help me on this? --69.249.228.69 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'd rather suggest you to ask your local admin to whitelist it. --Aphaia 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not exactly sure how to do that. --69.249.228.69 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • reset

You need to ask someone who is listed as an admin on your local wiki to edit the local whitelist to put this domain in (if the community are ok with that). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

cavalierhealth.org

The following discussion is closed.

This website had long been linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_king_charles_spaniel The site is a non-profit site dedicated to informing breed owners, buyers, and breeders about the severe genetic health problems of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. It discusses the genetic disorders, their symptoms, how they are diagnosed, how they are treated, what breeders can to do try to avoid passing them on to future generations, references to veterinary journal articles about the disorders, plus lists of veterinary cardiologists and neurologists who treat some of these disorders, and a list of upcoming health clinics sponsored by breed clubs and kennel clubs where owners can have their dogs examined for these problems. It has been an active site for several years, and it is the third most visited Cavalier King Charles Spaniel website in the United States. ----CavalierHealth

According to the request on Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/08, this link was posted by anons to not only English Wikipedia but other language Wikipedias. Third most visited website in a certain theme in the United States sounds no good reason to post it to German, Norwegen or Swedish websites in my humble opinion and I feel it reasonable people think it spamming. --Aphaia 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
On 21 July IP 72.40.157.97 added the link to all Wikipedia articles there were about Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, except the English article where the links already was (there was already a link to the website in some of the other articles too, after the cross-wiki link adding trip of 72.40.157.97 on July 21. there were two links to the website in each of the Wikipedia articles. There was also a brand new article in Dutch Wikipedia, containing nothing but those two links. I saw this and reverted it, where it hadn't already been done. The next day the same IP readded the links in the articles in fr, no and pt Wikipedia. Then I nominated the link for blacklisting.
The URLs cavalierhealth.com and cavalierhealt.net goes to the same website, and the link to cavalierhealth.com was added to the English Wikipedia article about Cavalier King Charles Spaniel on 9 August, by the same IP who added the cavalierhealth.org links crosswiki on 21 July. --Jorunn 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
There was no intention to do any spamming. The website was listed on the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel pages of Wikipedias in several languages because it contains useful information about the breed, and many viewers of those sites also read English. Breed club websites in non-English speaking countries specifically link to this site. See, e.g., http://www.swedenckcs.se/ There is no profit motive in posting this site -- which is about the health of the breed -- to webpages devoted to that breed. So, spamming is not the motive. The site is non-profit, has no advertisements, and provides a valuable service to Cavalier owners throughout the world. --CavalierHealth 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

 Declined However may I say by way of explanation that this is not a reflection on your site but concerns the Wikimedia community's wishes. When a link is continually added and equally continually removed by a variety of users on different Wikis it seems to me that they are saying that they do not want the link. If there are enough instances & wikis the site is then blacklisted. I'm afraid that your wish to have it removed from the list seems contrary to the wishes of a number of users -Herby talk thyme 11:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


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

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments7 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

Joao Gilberto

I keep trying to leave a note on this talk page and every time I do so I am told I can't because a site linked on the page (bossa nova.net) is blacklisted. 144.92.184.173 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just delete the blacklisted link or disable it by stripping the "http://" --A. B. (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

European Megalithic Culture

Why can't I edit this page? 82.37.234.110 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I have no idea which page you are talking. As red link suggested, I am only sure we have no such article on this website. Please specify which wiki you are concerned. Thanks. --Aphaia 04:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Clones of Wikipedia

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Perhaps, some non-honest participants from competing wiki-projects (clones of Wikipedia) could create links which send to their clon instead of Wikipedia. I believe, sometimes it is difficult, to detect such a link. I believe that the governers of Wikipedia could make a decision to prohibit such links. However, clones exist, and their existence should be mentioned in Wikipedia. Currently, in the Russian section, the war against hidden links to the clones comes to the absurd: the participants remove not only "blue" links, but any mention of a clone, even critics of clones; see [47] and around.

While we make the most complete encyclopedy, we should mention others; for example, in the case of the Russian section,

  • wiki.traditio.ru
  • ru.volgota.com
  • www.openwiki.org.ua

If I do not know some of clones, they also should be mentioned here. List of clones should be kept separately from the list of conventional spammers (who promote, perhaps, a fast way to become rich, enlarge penis and/or tits, and so on).

Writing a paper in WIkpedia, we should specify, if there exist an analogy of the paper in a clone(s), and, perhaps, indicate, why the wikipedia-paper is better. This indication sould be short compared to the rest of the article, but is should exist. According to the Second Pillar of Wikipedia [48], we should prove our statements, even if the references we suggest are not clickable. We really can prove, that wikipedia is best. Is difficult to assume a good will of participants, who hide such a proof.

In addition, clones help in the development of Wikipedia. They may suck out from Wikipedia vandals, trolles, and strongest activists of the war of editions. Any "nosorous" can go to a clone, together with his "improved" version.

We should mention the clones who copy articles from Wikipedia. This helps to avoid their use as "source". It is better, if a participant finds a ref to a "clone-article" at the bottom of wikipedia's article, with appropriate explanation, than in an external site of database (perhps, with some piar of a clone).

We have no need to defend the prestige and high rank of Wikipedia, prohibing to mention the competitors. No one tendencious enciclopedy can seriously compete with Wikipedia. No one clone can superate Wikipedia, downloading copies from Wikipedia. The only poor management (for example, censorship, prohibiiton to indicate names of clones, systematic removal of references) maight give the competitors some advantage. I believe, Wikimedia has no need to make such error. Domitori 21:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

See:
--A. B. (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=652502"