Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-10

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in October 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Proposed additions

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

Link descriptions consist solely of whitespace. MER-C 08:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I blacklisted but don't see a really evidence of spam for Do you please have some other links ? Thanks -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
[1] [2]. Same type of spamming at the same time, both IPs also spammed MER-C 03:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Added Added the second, yep, spam. --Courcelles 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another alias of MER-C 10:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

URL shortener. MER-C 10:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Added. --Trijnstel 17:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


See en:WP:WPSPAM item



--Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

URL shortener. MER-C 11:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Added. --Trijnstel 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky SEO spamming

Spammers attempting to disguise links as plain text with CSS. MER-C 08:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Added. --Courcelles 08:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The link is being spammed cross wiki by user Raptors2019.

Signs of earlier spamming by IPs:

-- 22:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Added + Reverted Reverted. User added link at least 90 times on at least 26 different projects. User may be acting in good faith, but this is widespread unmanageable spam. --EdBever 10:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Added. per above. --EdBever 20:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

URL shortener, abused in this edit. EdBever 13:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Added Added. --EdBever 13:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Crosswiki moneymaking spam

See wikipedia:WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interface Designer. The named user has been spamming multiple-language Wikipedias with these, intending to advertise ways to use Wikipedia to make money. User is presently blocked indefinitely on en.wp for spam, but we may as well blacklist these, since he is not yet blocked elsewhere (to the best of my knowledge) and it may take a while for the other languages to be brought up to date. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Added. User seems to use wikipedia only to spam these links. --EdBever 08:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed removals

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted. Official Travel Guide

Transferred from en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Wizardistanbul.com_Official_Travel_Guide. EdBever 18:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist Removal request: As a newbie of Wikipedia, i was just adding External links on Istanbul and travelling Istanbul related pages(like main attractions, province, towns of Istanbul, transportation in Istanbul). is official Istanbul travel guide supported by Ministry of Tourism. Also not like other sites, the site works like a call center and replies any questions of tourists in minutes manually.

So even it may seem spam, its worth to add external links on Istanbul related wiki pages which directs mostly tourists or info seekers to ask questions directly to the source. Also if it's possible can you please add to Whitelist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011

Comment Comment Wikipedia is not a collection of links. You have added this link to at least 12 wikipedia pages with apparently the intent to attract traffic to your site. This constitutes spam, regardless of the nature of the site. The link added was a link to the homepage of this website and not to a page that would be deemed relevant to the articles it was added to. I see no reason to delist this link, furthermore I see no reason to whitelist this entire domain. You can however request whitelisting of a certain page at en:wp or any other wikipedia project. Since I blacklisted it I will leave the decision about delisting to another admin. EdBever 18:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment Comment For sure, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, but a knowledge base. So this on-demand Wizard Istanbul guide should be listed under related pages. I just thought its an on-demand service so linked to homepage to be understood by visitors and ask question about whatever they need to know. So can you please remove from blacklist at least just for people to add the link to relevant pages of Wizardistanbul. Also you can blacklist my ip, but blacklisting the website seems not fair. Thanks in advance.--Mcihangir 17:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is a knowledgebase. What you are looking for is Google, or maybe a web directory. We don't link to sites because somewhere on that site there may be more info available on the subject where it is linked from, first we would try to incorporate that data, or second we would link directly to the relevant info if the first would not be suitable. Not link to a homepage and hope that the interested reader will be capable to find the relevant data. We are writing an encyclopedia here. Declined Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request that be removed from the blacklist. It's a valuable and trusted Windows 8 resource that's over 2 years old with over 650 posts and over 1200 comments. It has completely unique content and at this point is a reputable source of Windows 8 information. It has more than 640,000 monthly pageviews and over 200,000 unique monthly visitors and a Newsletter audience of 35,000 readers. It's being blacklisted as part of the Nnigma network but has never engaged in any spam like activities of any kind. Thanks for your consideration. Onuora Amobi -- 01:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

`:As you see, you could link to the site. It is not blacklisted here. It is however on en.wikipedia, ar.wikipedia and hi.wikipedia, which may suggest that this site is not generally wanted. You say "650 posts and 1200 comments" which suggests that it is a blog. For en.wikipedia, those just generally fail to be suitable links. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That would generally be a great answer except for the fact that almost all my competitors are listed and referenced for Windows 8. They are all blogs. Windows8news. Windows8beta. Windows8center. etc etc Thanks for your consideration. Onuora Amobi

Now, that is not exactly a reason to list yours as well, is it? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Bottom line, Onuora Amobi, you are asking in the wrong place. If you believe there is a usefulness for this particular web site, it may not be appropriate for the wikipedias (Beetstra may be correct), but might be appropriate, say, for the wikiversities. If you can convince the local users of one of the 'versity sites that is a valuable resource, say for an educational resource, perhaps as a place to discuss or ask questions, it could be used there. The likely fate of the other sites on the wikipedias may be that they will be removed and if someone asks, they will be blacklisted. Don't bark up the wrong tree. If you'd like assistance with proper usage of this site on WikiMedia Foundation wikis, you may contact me at v:User talk:Abd. I have not investigated and this is not a specific opinion as to usability anywhere. I recommend that you register an account on en.wikiversity, enable and validate email for yourself, disclose any conflict of interest that you may have, on your user page, and use that account to pursue this. If you have a conflict of interest involving them, do not add links to web sites, in any controversial way. You may propose them, though, on user and other talk pages. If they are blacklisted, give them as the URL without the http://, so that the blacklist filter will not engage. People will be able to copy and paste that into most browsers, directly.
I am actively soliciting your participation at en.wikiversity. You doubtless have some area of expertise or interest, and you can actually help there, and you will not be rejected merely because of a conflict of interest. Indeed, you may be welcomed because of it, if you will behave cooperatively. --Abd 18:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Onuora Amobi, you need to be at en:WT:SBL (to request delisting) and en:WT:SWL (to request whitelisting). If I may suggest, I would focus on the merits of this site, not on other sites which are listed. I will however have a look at en:Windows 8 and others. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Declined Declined. Not globally blacklisted. --Trijnstel 19:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the URL for the "Awesome highlighter" web site. Like, it is a great facility for highlighting text of interest within an archived copy of a web page, like this: . It is not a spammer site.

While it could, in theory, be used to make copies of spammer pages, I doubt there'd be much incentive for that, since the referenced pages come from archived copies, and thus presumably bypass revenue-generating ads.

There's great utility in being able to directly reference material within a web page. The "Awesome highlighter" provides that capability. CiteBite does, too, but each of the two sites has its own strengths and weaknesses. One advantage of Awesome Highlighter is that it allows highlighting more than one snippet of text on a page.

I propose that be deleted from the blacklist.

If my prediction is wrong, and spammers start using it, then the right solution is not to blacklist entirely, but, rather, to give Wikipedia the smarts to check the referenced pages (that is, the pages from which the archived copies were copied), to see whether THEY are blacklisted. It should be easy, since the original link is right at the top of each highlighted page. NCdave 04:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

NCDave, you are suggesting that developers create specific intelligence to allow the usage of one website? There is an easier solution: whitelisting of pages as needed, where needed. Show enough usages like that, maybe site delisting can be considered. Practically speaking, it's a pain, whitelist requests on often sit there for a long time with no attention. I tried to clerk the whitelist page to queue it for admins, to make it simple, but it wasn't welcome. But it's pretty much the only way, I suggest. Someone else might be able to pull it off. Beetstra is often helpful on that whitelist page, when he has time, and there are others who will be, also. The problem with this solution is that it can be beyond the ken of inexperienced users. --Abd 14:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It is roughly as Abd says, some sites are in itself not spam sites, but they are (sometimes relentlessly) abused by spammers, as they are an obvious way around the blacklist. Redirect sites are one of those types, certain specific functions in search engines like google are another, and 'backup' sites are yet another. I do agree, this is one with an extra functionality (though I am not sure in which way it really benefits Wikipedia, I mean - whether or not it is highlighted, the statements in the document that 'verify' the statement on Wikipedia are in the reference, though I do see that this certainly can be helpful sometimes).
These 'backup'-sites do have me ambiguous sometimes, and I think it depends. They are clear (necessary) uses on one side, and can be clearly abused on the other. We have to live with the realisation that certain spam can never be eradicated as there are too many unblockable ways around it, this may be one on the edge of that.
The blacklist mechanism indeed does not detect what is on the page (which would be massive, one would have to load every page to check what is on it). That would be an unworkable method. My link-addition-detection-script does do this in a limited way, but if I would open it in full it would never be able to keep up.
I think for now that whitelisting specific links is the way to go. As I said, I think the real use of this is a bit limited (but if there are a lot of requests for it, then it certainly would make sense to de-blacklist and use the blacklist the other way around (blacklist the abused stuff only). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Declined Declined. Per above. --Trijnstel 19:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


I attempted to cite an article at for the purposes of updating the reference on the article at I would hope that at least this site may be whitelisted. Thanks. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 October 2011‎ (UTC)

This link is not globally blacklisted. It is blacklisted on en.wikipedia. Please request removal of the link at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist or request whitelisting at en:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. EdBever 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Declined Declined. Per EdBever. --Trijnstel 19:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Qingdao International Beer Festival details @ ( seem to be the top resource on the web. It provides current details that are gathered from local residents & resources. Can it be removed from your black list?

This link is caught by \bqingdao(?:china|official)guide\.com\b. This site appears to be a commercial site owned by a marketing firm showing all sorts of businesses in Qingdao. I would suggest you request local whitelisting for the link you mentioned. EdBever 18:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The entire site is extremely useful providing current details on transport, culture, tourism, education, sports, etc. and doesn’t deserve the stigma that is associated with being on this list. Besides, being a commercial site should not automatically warrant inclusion. Thanks for your consideration.-- 17:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And if it was spammed, And I quote the original report: "Relentless spamming of this site,,, qingdaochinaguide (the last two of which redirect to by multiple IPS". I would also suggest local whitelisting for the specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. White-listing individual articles/resources sounds good, but would still prevent users from citing new information on future articles/resources. The original report is more than 3 years old, has there been any recent activity? Sorry for asking, but what is the purpose of continuing to black-list a useful and trusted site that has current specific details on transport, culture, tourism, education, sports, etc. ? Hopefully this will not encourage wiki users to post information/details without proper citations. Thanks again-- 17:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, since it is blacklisted it can not be abused, and hence there is no recent activity - that is the purpose of the blacklist. Whether it is still useful to have it on the blacklist is a good subject for discussion. For now I would suggest to do a whitelist request, and see what the input there is. As in the original report it was described as 'relentless' - then I am not sure if it would not restart, and then it is better to have a wider audience before de-blacklisting (on the other hand, if abuse continues, it can always be re-added, though then it probably will never come off again). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 21:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So: Declined Declined. EdBever 19:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I do not believe this should be blocked on any Wikimedia project, particularly as the website's subject is highly notable in the fields relating to Nottingham, Merseyside and is a highly notable individual. Yes, it may have been spammed in the past, but it's a worthwhile site to recommend and should never be blocked. I can adequately confirm this - it's a highly-visited site, more so than Facebook or Twitter, and one that's notable for many reasons. --Balcegnis 10:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh goody - porn Declined Declined. --Herby talk thyme 11:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but this list is to keep it from being spammed, feel free to ask for whitelisting of specific documents on wikis that need a link (though not the whole domain, as that would open up all spamholes again). It may be useful, but it is just waiting to be abused. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is to request to unblock the site to be used in en:Charlie_Miller_(security_researcher). A link in the article says but this is NXDOMAIN now. I found the URL in the archive and it seems to be blocked ever since. Please reconsider. Thanks, 22:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Declined Declined. As already explained in August 2010, this site is not on the global spam blacklist. It is however on the spam blacklist of the English Wikipedia. Please request removal on en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist or whitelisting on en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Kind regards, --Trijnstel 22:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, will do. -- 04:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think, that the website is OK now. I would like to ask you very kindly to remove it from your blacklist, if possible.ADIRE is a superior lawyer's office in Japan. --タヌ吉 04:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC) This site is not SPAM now. --タヌ吉 02:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Declined Declined. Why does wikipedia need to allow a link to a lawyer's office? The site has been spammed in the past, I see no reason why this site should be delisted. --EdBever 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably, it was abused. ADIRE is a reliable law office. ADIRE.COM is a reliable official site. I would like to add to wikipedia about Japan's famous lawyer. It is the office to which they belong.I think that it should be deleted from a blacklist. --タヌ吉 06:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for archiving Discussions.