Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by A. B. (talk | contribs) at 21:57, 29 August 2007 (→‎Proposed additions: more babyhold.com-related spam). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 16 years ago by A. B. 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|658088#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 ago35 comments13 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.

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

Caique spam

The following discussion is closed.

}

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
Done However, I think the original request should be more informative: not every meta sysop are on OTRS. And the request is concerned with only English Wikipedia, reviewing the OTRS ticket, I think it appropriate to restraint them globally. --Aphaia 05:32, 28 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
Any update on this? Current, local blacklist? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gambling blog spammer

The following discussion is closed.

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
You can request local blacklisting on en.wikipedia at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

islamhouse.com

The following discussion is closed.

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
It's registered to the "Islamic Propagation Office in Rabwah" in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; so is islamhouse.org. --A. B. (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

More ifrance.com subdomains

Spammed the sonikmatter wiki. The number to the right indicates the specific numbers of instances. This was taken from a single page. Another Mediawiki installation that is affected here

  • alishca-st\.ifrance\.com 5
  • atrayah\.ifrance\.com 12
  • call-shotgun\.ifrance\.com 12
  • cocopuff66\.ifrance\.com 10
  • dejablu503\.ifrance\.com 10
  • flawedamythyst\.ifrance\.com 7
  • gabe95\.ifrance\.com 7
  • gajar\.ifrance\.com 9
  • horcrionebay\.ifrance\.com 8
  • joshuaw-wise\.ifrance\.com 11
  • krychan\.ifrance\.com 6
  • lekusya\.ifrance\.com 13
  • lightmyfire0214\.ifrance\.com 12
  • mfirishka\.ifrance\.com 13
  • nokros\.ifrance\.com 15
  • sm4\.ifrance\.com 13
  • smegmacheez\.ifrance\.com 11
  • squoi-oop\.ifrance\.com 9
  • trumanburb\.ifrance\.com 8
  • zeakk\.ifrance\.com 9

The Puppeteer 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It does seem that folk think this is really intended for Foundation sites (while sympathetic) so any links on them would assist a decision? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi Herby, for some history, please see this archived article and also here for similar instances. As I mentioned earlier, there was little problem with adding widespread spam links to the blacklist in the past as long as it didn't affect foundation sites. If the policy has changed, please let me know and we'll start seeking alternatives to dealing with the spam at our wiki.
I'm not really sure how to search through foundation sites for similar spam links to what we are experiencing. Our main search tool for spam has been to use google, with some of the links and Mediawiki. Normally, the spam that we see on our wiki turns up thousands of Mediawiki wiki's when you do such a search. I normally post a few example sites to demonstrate that it is widespread spam. If we don't find such links, we don't post it to the blacklist, and just do the reverts on our site, until the spam stops.
The Puppeteer 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the archive links & from that I agree with you - I'll get to it tomorrow I hope - cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

mts.net/~sabanski/sundial (avoiding blacklisted link mysundial.ca)

The following discussion is closed.

The link is used to avoid the blacklisting of mysundial.ca
(See archieved: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=652181#Sundial-link)

IPs spamming the link:

Cross-wiki spam, sample edits:

--Jorunn 09:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done (I hope this works, I had to avoid blocking all of mts.net). - Andre Engels 10:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
it doesn,t work, unfortunately, new link - mysundial.2-www.de was recently added to pl:wiki ([1] and [2] Maikking 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't see that the link you refer to should have been blacklisted by Andre's actions? --Herby talk thyme 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
No, but it is a new way to avoid the blacklisting of mysundial.ca. (It's an URL shortener from http://motigo.com/about/shorturls)
Cross-wiki spamming of mysundial.2-www.de:
IPs spamming the link:
Sample edits:
--Jorunn 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

mysundial.2-www.de Done - anything we can do about the links shortener? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

simplelink.php5.sk

The following discussion is closed.

This appears to be a url redirector service. Several similar sites have been blacklisted in the past (even before evidence of spam use), such as TinyURL, xaddr.com, MinorUrl.com, etc. Tizio 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done & thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

leggievai.it

The following discussion is closed.

Please, add leggievai.it. This website has been adding from a user in about 60 pages. This is the situation at the moment, but I've just begun the deletion. The link is out of our external links policy. Thank you. --Tooby 17:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 - all you want 18:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

more babyhold.com-related spam

babyhold.com was blacklisted on meta in July for cross-wiki spamming. In the process of investigating a request to remove it from the blacklist, I found that related domains had also been spammed; these should also be blacklisted on meta:

User accounts links to babyhold.com or one of the affiliated domains:

  1. en:Special:Contributions/206.135.101.75
  2. en:Special:Contributions/212.179.142.11
  3. en:Special:Contributions/80.178.255.30
  4. en:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
  5. en:Special:Contributions/84.108.16.180
  6. en:Special:Contributions/84.229.193.183
  7. en:Special:Contributions/Ai12345
  8. en:Special:Contributions/Doula expert
  9. en:Special:Contributions/Doula trainer
  10. en:Special:Contributions/Doula101
  11. en:Special:Contributions/I531345
  12. en:Special:Contributions/IS2007
  13. en:Special:Contributions/Mailalon
  14. en:Special:Contributions/Midwife101
  15. en:Special:Contributions/Natural Childbearing
  16. en:Special:Contributions/TaliSaar
  17. en:wikt:Special:Contributions/212.179.142.11
  18. en:wikt:Special:Contributions/80.178.255.30
  19. en:wikt:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
  20. en:wikt:Special:Contributions/TaliSaar
  21. he:Special:Contributions/83.130.229.199
  22. he:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
  23. ja:Special:Contributions/Ai12345
  24. yi:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
  25. he:Special:Contributions/77.124.21.197

Reference:

Please blacklist:

  • telavivguide.net
  • moolamusic.co.il
  • porto-guide.com


Google AdSense IDs:

  • 2382028832344851
  • 7017472673405738

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 16 years ago54 comments33 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.

bloopdiary.com

I own this website, and it has been banned because of associated spam. However, I do not endorse the spam, and nor the voluntary staff at the site. If you search bloopdiary on Google, you will come across forum spam that was created by abusive bots. I don't feel this is a fair reason to ban the site, given that many members would like to be able to read the wikipedia page and adjust it to keep in touch and updated about site development.

I propose that it be removed from the list.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.111.71 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the links referenced previously have disappeared; see Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/12#bloopdiary.com. I suggest asking Naconkantari and/or MaxSem about this domain.
There are also questions for the site-owner:
  1. Who would add these links?
  2. Why should Wikipedia want them?
  3. Do these links meet the requirements of our Reliable Sources Guideline?
  4. Do these links meet the requirements of our External Links Guideline?
--A. B. (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Related site:
  • www.lowestoftonline.com
See:
--A. B. (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'll look into this one --Herby talk thyme 07:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

My comments: this site was used by spambots. Even if there are positive answers to all four questions by A.B., we must be 1000% sure before removing this site from blacklist. MaxSem 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for your reply.

  1. Who would add these links?

Everybody. There are several members from the site that have asked about a wikipedia page, because there's a lot that goes on. Last year we successfully helped the police put a paedophile behind bars. We have developed a privacy system to help protect people from stalkers.

  1. Why should Wikipedia want them?

Some of the information about the privacy system would be helpful to others when looking for standards in privacy on sites such as this. Many of our members also use Wikipedia, and would like to see a page relevant to the site.

  1. Do these links meet the requirements of our Reliable Sources Guideline?

I believe so, there are press releases related to police cases that I'd like to write about now that I'm legally able to do so. We don't want to write a self-serving page about the greatness and righteousness of our website, we just want to share what we have discovered since the site is online and write about the developments in privacy protection that have come about. I'm confident there's lots of information that would be insightful to others.

  1. Do these links meet the requirements of our External Links Guideline?

The page would link to the site's domain, and to the press releases I have already spoken of. So I believe that the links would meet the requirements of your external links guideline.

The spam bots that abused the site have not been banned, but rather the system secured with numeric image verification and a system protection policy that prevents features, such as file hosting, being abused. We have had no problems with spam since.

212.159.111.71 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Personally I'm unconvinced by your "why we would want the links" and, for me, that has to be a key. If they are not wanted then no other argument is relevant. Equally personally I'm be reluctant to remove this while your ip (attached to the site) remains blacklisted on internet lists --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, the link was banned because of spam bots. My IP address is a static IP address from home, and I'd be interested in knowing where it's blacklisted. We've had the same IP for a good 5 years, and it's not just me that uses it.

I find your tone a little patronising. Regardless of your personal opinion, I thought that Wikipedia was read by many people on the web, and some of those people may actually find the information provided useful. I don't think it's fair to speak on behalf of all of them. As for the links being unwanted, the only reason to date for them being unwanted is because the spam bots abused the website (to my knowledge at least). And this has since been resolved. I feel it'd only be fair to give the wikipedia community a chance to see the content provided and let them decide for themselves.

212.159.111.71 11:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I regret the fact that you find my tone patronising as it is not intended however I will cease to comment on this thread after this to avoid further annoyance (unless it requires closing).
My view is that links that are continually added and removed means that the community have declared them "unwanted" and that is why a request is brought here.
As to blacklisting this will provide you the freely available information. I am sure you will argue that there are only two entries however the presence of any entries is very relevant --Herby talk thyme 12:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply


I believe this IP address was blacklisted because of an open SMTP relay that we were experimenting with, which has since been closed. I understand its relevance, but it was only blocked because of an honest mistake this end - and this isn't the server's IP address, it is my own!

I believe if you look further into the matter, you'll find that the server isn't doing anything illegal, and the links themselves haven't been up long enough for the community to even consider whether or not they should be on Wikipedia, because they were removed due to spam bot abuse (which wasn't initiated by the domain, but rather an unknown third party). Also, if BloopDiary is to be blacklisted, then I hope there'd be fair treatment to a site which is similar, namely OpenDiary. I don't understand why there'd be a whole page dedicated to one website (which actually holds no useful information whatsoever about the site or anything that it does) and yet we would be denied a page with small relevance to the website itself, but with much more relevance to the work involving privacy protection and protection from predators.

212.159.111.71 15:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

turkishweekly.net turkudostlari.net bturkish.at

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

  1. turkishweekly.net (usakgundem.com as well): a news journal (I don't know why it was ever blacklisted). It was first blacklisted by Dbl2010 (I think without a discussion), then he removed it when someone objected [3], and then he 'redid it with more detail' [4], which was blacklisting the Turkish version of the site. Weird. These were done after the discussions about blacklisting the Turkish chat sites. I agree they should be blacklisted but their existence does not imply blacklisting news journal websites. I think this should be removed from the blacklist
  2. turkudostlari.net: This website hosts among others a quite big and good archive of lyrics of "türkü"s (Turkish folk songs) with additional info about them (their origins, their 'tales', sourced). They also host non-copyrighted mp3's of some songs of contemporary musicians. The website was blacklisted on February 1st, b/c some guy added link to Edirne folk songs to Edirne on multiple wikis simultaneously.[5] I think it is time to remove the website from the blacklist. We can use it on many Turkish folk music related articles.
  1. bturkish.at: Apparently, this website does not exist [6]. There might be a spelling error.

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

biblewalks.com

The linkwww.biblewalks.com/info/JesusFootsteps.html is directly relevant to the Jesus article. I have added it back in twice? myself over the last few months. It does not contain any spam, and represents the traditional Christian view. Please remove from blacklist. 202.154.149.16 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The very "adding it back" is one of the reasons it gets added to such a list. It seems that the community is not as in favour of this link as you are. --Herby talk thyme 07:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
It was discussed briefly on the Jesus talk page a few months ago. There are only 1 or 2 editors who removed it, and 1 or 2 in favour of keeping it. I'll see if I can find and post a link. 222.155.79.242 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Prior discussions:
Multiple prior spam warnings from multiple editors:
--A. B. (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The links provided by A.B. (thanks) suggest that it is a noticeably bigger problem than you are attempting to portray in your "only 1 or 2 editors who removed it, and 1 or 2 in favour of keeping it". I think it likely this will close as decline based on this --Herby talk thyme 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

sjksiongboon.freewebpage.org

The following discussion is closed.

This website is a non-profit site. It does not contain any spam. Please remove from blacklist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.13.29.56 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 Aug 2007 (UTC)

I'll need to look at why "freewebpage" was put on the list --Herby talk thyme 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I need to list this official web site for references, and for some reasons, it's blacklisted. Can you PLEASE help me on this? 124.13.29.56 14:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

We're looking to see why it was blacklisted in the first list. Be patient, and we'll help you as soon as we can :-) Thunderhead 14:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Also could you tell us exactly why it is needed? It does have commercial links in it and I could not see anything that suggested it would be needed by foundation wikis. --Herby talk thyme 14:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I also find no value, and your request cannot be done without removing all "freewebpage.org". You are better to request a particular subdomain on a particular wiki, though I cannot and won't assure you that they will be persuaded. --Aphaia 15:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This website is dedicated to informing the local community and visitors about the school. This is not a spam site. I don't feel this is a fair reason to ban the site, given that many members would like to be able to read the wikipedia page to keep in touch and updated about the school.124.13.110.79 15:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The problem here is that if every local school worldwide wanted to add their weblinks there would be no Wikipedia merely a collections of links. You could ask the wiki you want it on to put your site on the local whilelist. As far as Meta is concerned  Declined --Herby talk thyme 15:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can I know how to put the site on local whilelist? 124.13.110.79 15:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You need to ask an administrator on the wiki you wish to use the link on to do it --Herby talk thyme 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Clones of Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

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 [7] 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 [8], 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
I support Domitori. We should discuss this in Russian Wikipedia, but it is not subject for global spam list. Delete from this list. (I am admin and member of arbitration committee at ruwiki) --.:Ajvol:. 09:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Closed with removal  Declined --Herby talk thyme 18:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

NEFAC

The following discussion is closed.

At least two articles reference pages on www.nefac.net

I am not familiar with the reason for the blacklist of NEFAC's site. It looks like one editor was over-eager about adding links, but not as if NEFAC has any systematic problem here. 72.66.37.60 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

 Declined - This is a result of quite an amount of cross wiki spamming and so will not be removed from the list. However the suggestion made previously is to seek local whitelisting of the pages you actually require on your local wiki - thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

blog.myspace.com

The following discussion is closed.

I'd like to add a link directly relevant to the Fabio Wunderbar page, which contains a link begining with blog.myspace.com. Please consider removing spam block for this particular link, as the article is being considered for deletion without due to its lack of citing and references which I am trying to provide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.158.152.205 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 Aug 2007 (UTC)

In practice you will need to request local whitelisting for this. It is unlikely that this will be removed from the Meta blacklist.  Declined thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

babyhold.com

I represent the site babyhold.com. I would like to ask that babyhold.com be removed from the Spam list. Links to our site were added in relevant articles as additional resources for interested readers.

Articles include:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_show#References - Causes of Vaginal Bleeding During Pregnancy links to an educational article that serves as an informative reference for pregnant women. Bleeding during pregnancy is an important issue that women need to be aware of.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_childbirth#External_links - Healthy Positions for Active Natural Labor is an educational article describing various birth positions that have been helpful to women to shorten and ease labor.

These articles do not sell a product and serve as educational tools on relevant subjects. Links were also added to given name pages to provide readers with information on the meaning of given names.

The article on Coverdell accounts babyhold.com/The_pregnancy_book/Financial_Planning/Coverdell_Accounts_-_An_Option_for_Young_Parents/ provides an alternative information source for parents interested in early college savings. It is an article that is fits along with the other External Links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverdell_Education_Savings_Account . The article provides an alternative view and does not sell the accounts.

Thank you for your time and assistance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babyhold Rep (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 Aug 2007 (UTC)

Links were placed on 5 or 6 Foundation wikis and so the site would not be removed from this global blacklist. Should you wish to place something on an article on Wikipedia for example you should seek whitelisting on there. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's fortuitous that Babyhold Rep brought this up, since in investigating this further, I found that the extent of spam activity and sockpuppetry was much broader than initially reported.
User accounts:
  1. en:Special:Contributions/206.135.101.75
  2. en:Special:Contributions/212.179.142.11
  3. en:Special:Contributions/80.178.255.30
  4. en:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
  5. en:Special:Contributions/84.108.16.180
  6. en:Special:Contributions/84.229.193.183
  7. en:Special:Contributions/Ai12345
  8. en:Special:Contributions/Doula expert
  9. en:Special:Contributions/Doula trainer
  10. en:Special:Contributions/Doula101
  11. en:Special:Contributions/I531345
  12. en:Special:Contributions/IS2007
  13. en:Special:Contributions/Mailalon
  14. en:Special:Contributions/Midwife101
  15. en:Special:Contributions/Natural Childbearing
  16. en:Special:Contributions/TaliSaar
  17. en:wikt:Special:Contributions/212.179.142.11
  18. en:wikt:Special:Contributions/80.178.255.30
  19. en:wikt:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
  20. en:wikt:Special:Contributions/TaliSaar
  21. he:Special:Contributions/83.130.229.199
  22. he:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
  23. ja:Special:Contributions/Ai12345
  24. yi:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
  25. he:Special:Contributions/77.124.21.197
Reference:
Other domains previously spammed and not already blacklisted:
  • telavivguide.net
  • moolamusic.co.il
  • porto-guide.com
Related domains:
  • authenticisrael.com
  • market-er.com
Google AdSense IDs:
  • 2382028832344851
  • 7017472673405738
I will request blacklisting of the other spammed links. --A. B. (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments12 people in discussion
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).

Blacklisting "http:// t"?

The filter has just blacklisted any link starting with "http:// t". Please fix. (I added a space between the // and t to be able to save this post. The filter is also forbidding the possibility to report about incorrect blacklisted links, sigh.) --62.78.179.116 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yea same problem as this, any link starting with t is getting zapped. 24.141.169.255 18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Same here. This needs to be removed from the blacklist. I just tried editing the trend micro article to replace the gif logo with an svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trend_Micro.svg, but it won't let me. It said that the error was from http://quote.t and http://www.t, but now it seems to be fixed! :) Althepal 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Same here - can't edit a page with perfectly legit. links. 91.125.19.205 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this is what caused my problem w/ perseus.tufts.edu reported above. So apparently any domain name starting with t is screwed, even if not after http:// 149.106.224.2 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I also got caught with this problem... the odd thing is, I can't find any such links on the page I'm trying to save, w:User:Disavian. Disavian 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

should "http://www." then the letter "t" after the dot be on the blacklist or is this a mistake? i cant type it exactly because its filtered!! am i not getting all the info for what spam link was blocked?? i'm slightly confused because i didnt add an links. only re-arranged the Human trafficking in Angeles City article. 124.217.57.249 18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be fixed now. Disavian 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fixed

It looks like it's fixed. Althepal 18:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Somehow, it seems to have been caused by this edit. It was fixed by that user reverting their change. 88.104.180.121 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (en:User:Dreaded Walrus)Reply
It hasn't been fixed though. I have a problem in Thai Wikipedia (htt p://t h.wikipedia.org). I'm using this functions,
[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=purge}} ปรับปรุงล่าสุด]

then the spam filter activated. I'm wondering if anyone can check out at th:Template:ประกาศ. Thanks. --Manop 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it's fixed now. --Manop 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I seem to hazily remember something like this happening a month or two ago due to a Mediawiki software glitch, not an admin error. I think all domains starting with some other letter were briefly blocked. --A. B. (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The filter has just blacklisted any link starting with "http:// sjksiongboon.freewebpage.org". Please fix. (I added a space between the // and t to be able to save this post. The filter is also forbidding the possibility to report about incorrect blacklisted links, sigh.) 124.13.29.56 14:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The "freewebpage" bit is the issue - it is blacklisted --Herby talk thyme 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Local blacklisting vs. global blacklisting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we don't blacklist by default here, then there should be a list or some mechanism (perhaps a bot) that tracks all the entries on the local lists so that other projects can check their links against what's been spammed elsewhere.
Ideally, the bot (or human volunteers) would also run periodic checks using a faster, expanded version of http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/linksearch to see if locally blacklisted links are showing up on any of the 700+ Wikimedia projects. (I say "faster, expanded" since that tool checks up to the 57 largest Wikipedias and may take several minutes when checking 57).
Also, it's hard to rule out cross-wiki spam when our best tool just checks 57 of our 700 projects.
--A. B. (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
PS, Call me lazy, but maybe it's just easier to just blacklist by default here as opposed to setting up a new coordination system.--A. B. (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=658088"