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This is an archived version of this page, as edited by A. B. (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 10 September 2007 (→‎Proposed additions: Swiss bankers spamming by the Mersey). 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|669435#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 ago48 comments11 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.

.metacafe.com

This site is unsafe and tries to install WinFixer spyware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.112.91.123 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Hum - may well be spammy, Eagle's tool is not working at present, but googleing it produces nothing alarming - more info? --Herby talk thyme 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
SiteAdvisor Rating - w:User:Flubeca
In the sense that there is nothing wrong with the site? If so that is what I got and would therefore Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:53, 7 September 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

www.wmis.com.cn

The following discussion is closed.

be-x-old:.dm aed spam again. Please include wmis.com.cn into blacklist. --EugeneZelenko 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Using Eagle's tool I get nothing on the main 57 wikis it checks Eugene - is this a cross wiki one or would your local blacklist be appropriate - let me know if I can help - cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
If other wikis doesn't have such problems (.dm aed, .dm aid articles are persisting spam pattern on be-x-old Wikipedia), local blacklist will be fine. But please tell how to set up local one, I never did such thing in the past. --EugeneZelenko 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
You will find you have a page MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist on your wiki (sysops only to edit). # means anything else on the line will be ignored so you can make a note of why or anything you want. You need to put in there \bwmis\.com\.cn\b - that will match exactly the domain you wish to block and nothing else. Feel free to post me a link for me to look at when you've done it (here or Commons) and I'll check it for you Eugene. It is worth using the blacklist locally for issues that only affect your wiki but I'll happily held, regards --Herby talk thyme 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's works!!! Thank you for help! --EugeneZelenko 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Happy to help --Herby talk thyme 06:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

palavas.blog4ever.com/ "Ensemble passionnément pour Palavas"

The following discussion is closed.

Through dynamic IPs, this political blog about French town of Palavas-les-Flots has been trying to impose it in fr.wikipedia article (history of article Palavas-les-Flots) and even a category ([1]), and others wikipedias (en., de., it. inside the article).

Furthermore, every IPs has never do a thing to improve, complete the articles. Not a thing.

Thank to a google search, I discover that the owner of this blog, Luc Albherne, put his blog's link on many blog's commentary and forums he found.

Please, put the link http://palavas.blog4ever.com/ on the black list. Sebjarod 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discovery : first appearance of the link on fr. (see) : the IP tries to impose the picture of the blog's owner on the history part of the article. Sebjarod 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done & sorry for the delay - missed it --Herby talk thyme 12:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's not a problem. I understand the lots of work to be done on meta. Thank you. Sebjarod 15:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

boxing-memorabilia.com

The following discussion is closed.

These boxing links were widely cross-wiki spammed. I noticed the boxing spam a while back when I was investigating another big, unrelated spam operation ( languedoc-france.info) that used the same shared corporate IP (cross-wiki edit history for 168.224.1.14). I noticed it was cross-wiki, but I was so pre-occupied with the langue-doc.info cleanup I forgot about this one.

The same boxing spammer also added links to ezinearticles.com pages with his links on them. (Ezinearticles.com is already blacklisted at meta).

Reference:

I don't know anything about the famousmuslims.com domain that's also included in the report, so I'm just listing the boxing stuff here for now. --A. B. (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
The website was used also as a legitimate source for an article on it.wiki... --Jollyroger 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
If it is legitimate then the best answer is to seek a local whitelisting for the site, thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

redtopbg.com, a gemisimo.com-related site

The following discussion is closed.

AboutUs.org is a commercial wiki the runs on the same Media-Wiki software the Wikimedia Foundation uses. It provides a directory of web sites -- sort of like DMOZ on steroids. Compare the AboutUs.org contributions of 83.130.44.203 (adding redtopbg.com to articles for the site's competitors) to that IP's contributions here on meta (protesting gemisimo.com's addition to the spam blacklist). You can also see that another AboutUs editor edits both the Gemisimo and Retopbg listings.

See also:

Gemisimo.com references:

Here are edit histories for redtopbg.com:

--A. B. (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

iil.be

The following discussion is closed.

URL redirection site similar to tinyurl.com courtesy of my favorite watchlisted article.[2]

Google Adsense ID: 9699183491858792
--A. B. (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done (request fixed to 1tmdotde)--Nick1915 - all you want 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching this. I clicked on the link, looked at the site then reported the URL here. I did not notice that 1tm.de redirects to iil.be.
So please also blacklist:
  • iil.be.
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done (will log it later) --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

carnivalservice.com

The following discussion is closed.

Cross-wiki spam.

IPs adding the link, all veloxzone.com.br:


Sample edits:

--Jorunn 06:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 - all you want 11:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

goascii.com, goascii.de

Someone spammed these links across Wikipedias in many, many languages. It has always been placed in the article about ASCII, for example here:

Later, it was pulled up so that it's on top to draw more attention, e.g.:

On smaller wikis, the spammer even created no-content articles:

The link label is usually in English, sometimes in German, in the case of als:, even both in English and in German. Probably there are also other translations.

See http://www.google.com/search?q=ASCII-Table+und+Charconverter+%28english%29+site%3Awikipedia.org for more examples.

About the usefulness of the link: in many languages, all the information is already contained in the articles. For example, en:American Standard Code for Information Interchange already has tables which contain octal, decimal, and hexadecimal codes. Also, changing the base is a trivial mathematical procedure, and I guess all common operating systems include a scientific calculator which supports this. The HTML entities that are given seem plain wrong for me. For example, it is claimed that | is the entity for |, ] is the one for ], and + is the one for +. These are not understood by browsers, and I doubt that they are defined anywhere, you don't find them in any other HTML entity lists. There are also some "code examples" at the bottom of the page, but these are trivial, and if you want to learn about them, this would definitively not be the place where you'd look for them/expect them.

So, please blacklist these URLs before that spammer gets more Google AdWords revenue. After that, I can maybe help removing the spam links with my bot, but it would be cool if a steward/dev could delete the no-content pages on the small Wikipedias. --Head 10:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 - all you want 10:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

For now, here's a non-bot manual user subpage for searching small wikipedias with these links:
--A. B. (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
These are the only remaining instances I found of either domain on our wikipedias; that still leaves 400 to 500 other projects (wikibooks, wikisource, etc.)
  1. ja:Special:Linksearch/*.goascii.com
  2. ceb:Special:Linksearch/*.goascii.com
  3. ka:Special:Linksearch/*.goascii.com
  4. nap:Special:Linksearch/*.goascii.com
  5. new:Special:Linksearch/*.goascii.com
  6. hi:Special:Linksearch/*.goascii.com
  7. mr:Special:Linksearch/*.goascii.com
  8. ru-sib:Special:Linksearch/*.goascii.com
  9. sco:Special:Linksearch/*.goascii.com
  10. kab:Special:Linksearch/*.goascii.com
I'll remove the wikipedia links in the next few hours. --A. B. (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've removed all the links on wikipedias now. In cases where there was nothing else on the ASCII page, I left notes[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] on the article talk pages with links from external links sections of the featured articles on en.wikipedia and es.wikipedia someone could use to build a legitimate stub.
Someone else needs to figure out what to do with the other projects. I suspect wiktionary in particular may have some of these. --A. B. (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

snurl.com

The following discussion is closed.

Not used for spamming yet but has been blocked on the german wikipedia because it is an urlshortener. --Nosfi 13:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done and thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

sk.tl, hr.tl, hu.tl

The following discussion is closed.

en:URL redirection sites similar to tinyurl.com:

  • hr.tl
  • hu.tl
  • sk.tl

Related to www.iil.be, another redirect domain just blacklisted this week. --A. B. (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

shim.net redirect domain

The following discussion is closed.

en:URL redirection site similar to tinyurl.com:

  • shim.net

See www.shim.net/index.phtml for details

Related sites already blacklisted:

  • freegaming.org, freebiefinders.net, op7.net, 2cd.net, 0kn.com, v9z.com

--A. B. (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply


You are not honest ,why not blacklist all redirection websites ? co.nr for example freedomain.co.nr? or biz.ly ? the biggest oldest ? look here for more related websites , you can ad them too LIST Like-Tiny 1 List Like-TinyURL 2 LIST Like-Tiny 3 DA.RU List Like TinyURL 4 or more related : and many many more .... be honest plese about related tiny url websites —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.137.244.59 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are correct and we doing just that - thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

cydots.com redirect domains - batch 1

The following discussion is closed.

en:URL redirection sites similar to tinyurl.com:

  • au.ms
  • br.ms
  • fr.ms
  • hk.ms
  • shop.ms

For more information, see www.cydots.com (look at web page's source code for the list of domains in page's drop-down list). There are more of these cydots.com domains but I don't want to list more today than I can reasonably clean up in the next day or two.
--A. B. (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Additional Crowdspin spam on Wikipedia

Per the discussion below, here are additional Crowdspin spam domains to blacklist:

  • howtocrowd.com
  • remedycrowd.com
  • rumorcrowd.com
  • rantcrowd.com
  • predictcrowd.com

References:

  1. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Additions: Done#dreamcrowd.com
  2. en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul#Adsense Spammer for account pub-8251988379290484 or 8251988379290484
  3. Talk:Spam blacklist#Dreamcrowd.com (permanent link)

--A. B. (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done, added--Nick1915 - all you want 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

mysundial.2see.de

The following discussion is closed.

Another redirect to mysundial.ca has been spammed cross-wiki. Reference:


--Jorunn 09:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

google.az

Please add "google.az/search?hl=tr", cf. Contribs of Sonmezkr1969, Sonmezk and 81.213.203.247. Sample edit (all others are identical): [10] (I don't have much experience in regexp things, so I can't do it myself.) --Thogo (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Swiss bankers spamming by the Mersey

Edit histories:

Domains known to have been spammed:

  • 12-Steps.info
  • AfricaCo.com
  • BankAccountsCo.com
  • CaymanBankingServices.com
  • ClickSwiss.com
  • SwissBankNames.com
  • SwissPrivateBank.com
  • TaxHavenco.com
  • Related domains:
  • AnonymousDebitCard.com
  • AtozOfWatches.com
  • BillyFitz.com
  • ChannelIslandsCo.com
  • CompanyFormationCo.com
  • CompanyFormationsCo.com
  • DebitCard24-7.com
  • DelawareCo.com
  • Dubai24-7.com
  • MediterraneanCo.com
  • MerchantAccountCo.com
  • OffshoreExclusive.com
  • PrestigeAdverts.com
  • PrivateBankAccount.com
  • SwissBankAccount.biz
  • SwissBankServices.com
  • WeKnowAbout.com

Reference:

--A. B. (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 16 years ago29 comments9 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

The following discussion is closed.

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

  • I have looked around the site, there is honestly nothing obvious there that would benefit the encyclopaedia. I suggest that if people not involved with the site actually want to use individual links, and can show they pass the relevant guidelines - which seems unlikely - then local whitelisting may be appropriate. Blacklisting was right due to spamming, the site is still on a lot of blacklists, there is nothing obvious in there for the project, so I can't see why we would want to remove it. Sorry. JzG 22:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

 Declined - with Guy on this - local whitelist if required --Herby talk thyme 11:55, 7 September 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 [11], and then he 'redid it with more detail' [12], 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.[13] 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 [14]. There might be a spelling error.

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

On the subject of "bturkish" this is actually part of the regex used so the site blacklisted is turkish.at --Herby talk thyme 07:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow, this has taken quite a while (probably my mistake). Thanks for bturkish though, I should have noticed /b's there. On the issue of turkishweekly, I started to think that Dbl2010 banned it for some issues on Turkish Wikipedia (Vikipedi). I guess I should contact him, and ask for blacklisting it on Turkish wikipedia, not here. Turkudostlari should be removed from the blacklist. It is like banning Wikipedia for some vandals. Among other things it has biographies of at least 295 Turkish/Azeri folk musicians including Ali Ekber Çiçek, Arif Sağ, Aşık Veysel, Birol Topaloğlu, Bülbül Memedov, Çekiç Ali, Dadaloğlu, Daimi, Edip Akbayram, Emre Saltık, Ercişli Emrah, Erdal Erzincan, Erkan Oğur, Erol Parlak, Ferhat Tunç, Feyzullah Çınar, Gevheri, Grup Kızılırmak (let me stop here), ... many of which have articles on en wiki (possibly also other wikis), therwise they should be notable enough to have articles on en wiki. I am not familiar with the notability guidelines on other wikis. Denizz 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

5min.com

We would like to ask for a removal of the url 5min.com from the spam blacklist section. 5min.com is a user generated instructional video site. our vision is to create a videopedia where everyone can upload a video and share their knowledge with others. We really care about user generated instructional content . As part of our vision, we want to give the knowledge communities access to our videos and we are already cooperating with wikihow.com, a very big "how to" wiki site. We don't really understand why we were added to the spam blacklist in the first place and we would love to be noticed if any of our members did something not according to the wiki rules.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.45.223 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 2 Sep 2007 (UTC)

The blacklist request is here. The use of a number of usernames and IP addresses to place links and ignoring warnings is not the best way to get the community "onside" I think although I realise the IPs involved are not the one you placed this request from --Herby talk thyme 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
You might ask "Daverose31" about the spam-- in addition to spamming these links to Wikipedia, he's apparently joined a number of other sites to add 5min.com links. He looks very busy.
Various Wikipedia editors issued numerous requests and warnings as the links were added but they were apparently shrugged off.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]
As for the IP address above, both the IPs adding these links as well as the IP making the request above all originate in Israel.[25][26][27] --A. B. (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Personally I'd take some convincing to remove this per A. B.'s evidence --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

5min is a 4 month old website. When we first started out, we hired a marketing company that did more harm than good by marketing our website in an unauthentic way. The marketing company, as well as 5min, is located in Israel. This is probably the source of the spam actions. Obviously 5min's vision doesn't include adding links indiscriminately. We believe that we can enrich many wikis with our video content and we get great feedback from leadin blogs on the web including techcruch who wrote about us the fourth time two days ago. We will do whatever it takes to get off the spammers list because we see our selfs as future partners with many wikis out there.

Let us know what we can do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.8.195 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Comment Comment - both of the IP addresses you have edited from have three (at least) blacklistings on the internet. Does not help your case at all although I realise it is possible that you are not fully in control of your IP such history will colour peoples views I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 14:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

nefac.net

A previous request that this site be removed from the list was declined on the basis that the site had been involved in "quite an amount of cross wiki spamming". This is not the case - it was involved in one incident of inappropriate cross-wiki posting. This site is a significant and reputable anarchist resource, and has not been involved in any systematic spamming problems. It should be removed from the blacklist. 68.124.71.180 20:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment for now - if someone places links on 7 wikis I'd probably take the view it was spamming & it seems "systematic" in my view. I'll happily look at others comments, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
NEFAC should be taken off the blacklist. It is a reputable organization with a wealth of good information. I don't understand the accusation of "cross-wiki spamming". From what I can tell, [decision to blacklist NEFAC] was made with very little discussion and I think it needs to be revisited. It looks like the links were legit resources on the pages it was placed. There's nothing "spammy" about linking to a useful resource on several wikis. I'm contacting User:Eagle_101, the meta-admin who did the banning for a revisit of this decision. Aelffin 05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Um. I'd say that the valid encyclopaedic uses for an anarchist communist agit-prop site are strictly limited, and can easily be handled by local whitelisting of individual pages if need be. Where do you think this site should be linked? JzG 07:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dreamcrowd.com

This is the first formal request for the site dreamcrowd.com to be removed from the spam list. The site was listed on a few sections related to dream analysis and dream interpretation, but later deemed as spam. The owners of Dreamcrowd.com have a strict policy not to add any of our own stuff on Wikipedia. Please remove this site from the Wikipedia spam list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christopher winters (talk • contribs) 06:40, 5 Sep 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this has been reopened since it looks like we missed a lot the first time.
Data:
DreamCrowd
8491 Sunset Blvd.
Hollywood, California 90048
  • 2 warnings for deleting spam-tracking pages
  • 1 spam warning
  • 1 spam warning
  • 1 spam article warning, 5 spam link warning
  • 1 spam warning
  • 1 spam warning


Other domains spammed but not yet blacklisted:
Related domains (not spammed ... as far as we know):


Blacklist some or all of these others here as an extension of this case or do it locally?
  • Definitely spammed:
    • howtocrowd.com
    • remedycrowd.com
    • rumorcrowd.com
    • rantcrowd.com
    • predictcrowd.com
  • Related -- unsure if spammed:
    • crowdspin.com
    • reviewcrowd.com
    • comedycrowd.com
    • goldenseconds.com
    • quotescrowd.com
    • ideascrowd.com
--A. B. (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the research - given the history I think the spammed ones should be listed here rather than anywhere else & I would certainly add them. I imagine preemptive action on the others might be against policy, maybe others will have a view --Herby talk thyme 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is precedent for linking all sites operated by known prolific abusive spammers, I think. JzG 07:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why blcok Encyclopedia Dramatica? It's very funny!

The following discussion is closed.

Encyclopedia Dramatica is very funny and I don't think anyone would take it serious. Come on people, don't be so squeamish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.5.50.44 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 5 Sep 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, why replace someone's user page with "Fuck you in the ass"? (See en:User talk:154.5.50.44 and en:Special:Contributions/154.5.50.44). --A. B. (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

iil.be and 1tm

The following discussion is closed.

i ask please delete iil.be and 1tm.de , i change the link but i din't know is such a big problem ...at this time , please accept my apologize Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.137.244.59 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 Sep 2007 (UTC)

You don't owe us an apology -- unlike many blacklistings, the listing of these domains here doesn't mean they're bad or that the site-owner has abusively spammed them. We understand that sites such as yours are designed to provide a useful service, not to facilitate abuse by spammers. Nevertheless, like all URL redirection domains, we blacklist them because others that have been blacklisted here for abuse often use such services to bypass our filters. So please don't take our filtering of your domains personally -- it's just a housekeeping, preventive action in this case. --A. B. (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

 Declined per A.B.--Nick1915 - all you want 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply


hometown.aol.co.uk/

Surely blacklisting all of aol is a bit drastic. For instance this really fine academic's images of rare petroglyphs is unlinkable on en:wiki's Wadi_Hammamat.

  • hometown.aol.co.uk/lankester2/page6.html WADI HAMAMMAT: Gallery and description of several dyanastic and pre-dynastic site in the Wadi, by Francis Lankester. Retrieved September 2007.

--User:T_L_Miles

I think your best answer here is to seek local whitelisting for the actual pages that are relevant - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments16 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

Some HTML that is apparently blacklisted

This part: 

biresybj:nhgb;urvtug:

Of the references list element below is blocked because of the spam blacklist. 

<qvi fglyr="biresybj:nhgb;urvtug:200ck;jvqgu:100%;">

It should not be blocked. I had to ROT13 encode the above to make it pass the spam blacklist here. A PHP script will easily decode it, but I use leetkey.Krator 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you prove the reason why it should not be blocked? Thanks! --Aphaia 07:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Though I find it self evident, the blocked item is some HTML code that will enable an element to have a fixed size, and display a scroll bar once its contents exceed that size. This is useful for reference lists as they appear on Wikipedia, e.g. in w:Characters of StarCraft. Using overflow:scroll has a nasty horizontal bar as well that is unneeded, and the auto option should be possible. Krator 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've run into the issue with the display tag causing the blacklist to become active; I believe I got around it by just shifting the CSS declarations around. EVula // talk // 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Regardless of workarounds, this is not how the blacklist is supposed to work. This is a bug and should be fixed. Krator 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not arguing in the least, just giving you a stopgap measure so you can still get stuff done in the meantime. :) EVula // talk // 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Finally found my initial comment about it, and the response;[28] apparently, it's coming from somewhere other than this blacklist. EVula // talk // 22:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's not a software bug, see Bugzilla bug #8829. --.anaconda 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 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
I am with AB on this: we should use meta as both the main blocking list and also a forum where people go to see if someone has been causing a wider problem. Otherwise it becomes impossibly complicated to block from here and the argument "it this a nasty spammer who xyz" becomes "who abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". --AndrewCates 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • reset

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=669435"