Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Mike.lifeguard (talk | contribs) at 23:29, 1 August 2008. It may differ significantly from the current version.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests and proposals Spam blacklist Archives (current)→
The associated page is used by the Mediawiki Spam Blacklist 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 (list, search), additions and removal are logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|1114472#{{subst:anchorencode:SectionNameHere}}}}

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

Spam that only affects single project should go to that project's local blacklist

Proposed additions

Symbol comment vote.svg 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 (, not Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived.

I'm bringing this one here from en wp bl page as there are 20+ links on the top 20 wikis. On the en wp page it is stated that it is not the official site. If that is the case the link placement would seem to be spamming but on the couple of wikis I've had time to check the links have been there quite some time. Views appreciated, cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a fan of fan sites either - I'd say most of these links can be removed uncontroversially; replace it with the official site if needed. I don't know that blacklisting is needed though. If users begin pushing the link after some cleanup, then revisit that though.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Any idea what the real official site is?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam war about w:en:Morro de São Paulo

These these hotels and travel guides are spamming and making a spam war about their services about an Brasilian touristic place. The spam is limited to one page, but they attack 6 wikipedias and never gave up in more than a year I'm following them.

Actually, almost all edits in 2008 in several wikis about w:en:Morro de São Paulo are spam edits.

  • en: (just a few examples, there are dozens) Feb-March 2008 [1] [2] [3] [4] (→ this one is more subtile, the link to the hotel is done through a to a travel guide) (skip some spam...) May 2008, just one edit in dozens of spam edits that months [5] (skip) [6] (today)
  • de:, since May 2007 and going on. [7] (the first spam in May 2007)
  • pt:, just one example, obviously portuguese-language project is the main place where those spammers are active. (here, Dec. 2007) [8]
  • ca:, the last one (27 Jul 2007) [9]
  • fr:, I know more about this one : since the very first version there is a boring and repetitive spam war in this nice article

Jérôme 10:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - if it were just one wiki other methods could be used but frankly this is just silly and abuse of Wikipedia to say nothing of the waste of everyone's time. Thanks for catching it - Added Added. --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to en.wp, where the domain has been added to the local blacklist & the IP blocked for a second time in 2 weeks.. these are XWiki links containing malware executables (all have been reverted). fr pt ru uk no

I know it's a single IP that is spamming, but given there doesn't appear to be any other usage of this domain on WMF projects, I think it's worth global blacklisting to protect our users from this particular malware spamdal. --Versageek 07:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed & an important part of why this list is here. Added Added and thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In ko.wp: [10][11][12][13] and en.wp:[14][15][16]

It would be better to block this spammer if possible. --ITurtle 09:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

cross-wiki spammer:

Resolve to

Resolve to

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Added Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed additions (Bot reported)

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for websites which have been added to multiple wikis as observed by a bot.

Items there will automatically be archived by the bot when they get stale.

Sysops, please change the LinkStatus template to closed ({{LinkStatus|closed}}) when the report is dealt with, and change to ignore for good links ({{LinkStatus|ignore}}). More information can be found at User:SpamReportBot/cw/about

These are automated reports, please check the records and the link thoroughly, it may be good links! For some more info, see Spam blacklist/help#SpamReportBot_reports

If the report contains links to less than 5 wikis, then only add it when it is really spam. Otherwise just revert the link-additions, and close the report, closed reports will be reopened when spamming continues.

Please place suggestions on the automated reports in the discussion section.


Running, will report a certain domain shortly after a link is used more than 2 times by one user on more than 2 wikipedia (technically: when more than 66% of this link has been added by this user, and more than 66% of this link were added XWiki). Same system as SpamReportBot (discussions after the remark "<!-- Please put comments after this remark -->" at the bottom; please close reports when reverted/blacklisted/waiting for more or ignore when good link)

List Last update By Site IP R Last user Last link addition User Link User - Link User - Link - Wikis Link - Wikis 2021-09-16 13:53:57 COIBot R 20 HI TECH 2070-01-01 05:00:00 8 8 0 0 2 2021-09-16 17:33:32 COIBot R Blaze The Wolf
2070-01-01 05:00:00 21 2 2021-09-16 14:17:51 COIBot Suri zd 2070-01-01 05:00:00 196 163 0 0 2 2021-09-16 18:40:45 COIBot 2800:98:111A:1B7:C47B:1A27:62EA:91D0 2070-01-01 05:00:00 5 6 0 0 2 2021-09-16 19:48:23 COIBot R Mintme-com
2070-01-01 05:00:00 45 3 2021-09-16 18:42:19 COIBot
2070-01-01 05:00:00 5 2 2021-09-16 15:21:49 COIBot
2070-01-01 05:00:00 13 2

Proposed removals

Symbol comment vote.svg 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.

bacause it only gives Bad Request (Invalid Hostname). --WikedKentaur 05:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This was blacklisted by User:Nick1915 after this request. If it returns an error there is no reason to link to it, and given past problems, I'm reluctant to de-list it in case it is fixed and spammed. Perhaps that's too paranoid.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Declined Declined then.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually used as a source for GFDL licensed map data, see e.g. de:Wikipedia:Karten#Vorrangige Kartenquellen weltweit (Grenzen, Relief, Gewässer, Verkehrswege u.a. Apparently a weblink to it was added to several Wikipedias' articles about the Kilimanjaro in April, see User:SpamReportBot/cw/ Does this merit a permanent blacklisting? --Rosenzweig 11:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this looks ok to de-list. The site is useful and I see no indication that the IP will cause future problems with this domain. Removed Removed  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear wikimedia editors: May you please remove / unblock ?(domain, not specific url) The website contains mainly photos about southamerica destinations and destination information such as history or geographical data, even when might be useful to wiki I understand it was blocked due to some kind of IP spam what is actually affecting my website, unfortunatelly I can't avoid people intentionally or unintentionally linking to website, as I can't avoid people using photos from our website in facebook profiles etc. I'm not asking for no inclusion at all on any pages if you don't consider it proper, only do not appear as blocked. However if you feel any information would be usefull to Wiki you are encouraged to link to it. Site has english, spanish and portuguese pages about classic and exotic destinations (like villa general belgrano, morrocoy, garopaba) I'd appreciate your consideration about it. Thank you very much! --Maiatheone 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not remove listing on the request of site owners except in quite exceptional circumstances. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a tourist directory, as such your website looks as though it may well not be appropriate to me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC),, and other url compressing sites

I request to remove these sites from the list because we need to use them to abbreviate long URLs, especially in the "Subject" field (it has a limited width). Just today I tried to insert a tinyurl URL into the "Subject" field in it.wikipedia and the page didn't get saved, it showed me an error (though I'm sysop on it.wikipedia). I needed to insert a very long URL (a link to Google cache). --Pietrodn · talk with me 15:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that will not happen. The issue is that people who sites are blacklisted for good reason will be able to use a url compressor to evade the blacklisting. Any such sites are blacklisted without question. Sorry --Herby talk thyme 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. I thought that the problem was not so big. --Pietrodn · talk with me 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Removal:

Cannot add really great interviews for relevant wiki pages as this site appears to have been blacklisted and I have no idea why. The pages are outrate (dot) net/buckangel.html and outrate (dot) net/camillepaglia.html - fantastic interviews referenced around the net but not on the relevant Buck Angel and Camille Paglia wikipedia pages. I'm a researcher in gender studies at UC Berkeley and I really feel that these are great additions to these wiki pages but cannot add them too external links as the site keeps reporting as being "blacklisted".

Is there any chance the blacklist can be lifted for this site - I don't know why it should be blacklisted? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 07:07, 30 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Listing request is here and seems valid. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

i spoke to the editor of the site and he assures me the pornographic content of the site has been mostly removed, and that the initial multi-page adding was done in error, and wouldn't be done again in the future. Does this alter the decision?

Declined Declined. Still fails external link and sourcing guidelines and has been spammed. You may be able to have individual pages whitelisted if you can achieve consensus for that and demonstrate relevance, quality and reliability. JzG 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We have been blacklisted for spam, which has not been conducted by any of our staff. Please, look into our case for possible blacklist removal. Thank you. If it helps, we are Google News and MSN News source. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 August 2008.

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your domain may well be removed.
Until such time, this request is Symbol declined.svg Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

Symbol comment vote.svg 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).

double/wrong entries

when i deleted some entries from the german sbl, which are already listed in the meta sbl, i saw that there are many double entries in the meta sbl, e.g., search for

top-seo, buy-viagra, powerleveling, cthb, timeyiqi, cnvacation, mendean

and you'll find some of them. if you find it useful, i can try to write a small script (in august), which indicates more entries of this kind.
furthermore i'm wondering about some entries:

  1. "\zoofilia", for "\z" matches the end of a string.
  2. "\.us\.ma([\/\]\b\s]|$)", for ([\/\]\b\s]|$) ist the same as simply \b, isn't it? (back-refs are not of interest here)
  3. "1001nights\.net\free-porn", for \f matches a formfeed, i.e., never
  4. "\bweb\.archive\.org\[^ \]\{0,50\}", for that seems to be BRE, but php uses ERE, so i guess, this will never match
  5. "\btranslatedarticles\].com", for \] matches a ']', so will probably never match.

before i go on, i want to know, if you are interested in this information or not. :-) -- seth 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, we could use someone like you to clean up the blacklist... :D Kylu 01:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
We are indeed interested in such issues - I will hopefully fix these ones now; keep 'em coming!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Some of the dupes will be left for clarity's sake. When regexes are part of the same request they can be safely consolidated (I do this whenever I find them), but when they are not, it would be confusing to do so, in many cases. Perhaps merging regexes in a way that is sure to be clear in the future is something worth discussing, but I can think of no good way of doing so.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
in de-SBL we try to cope with that only in our log-file [17]. there one can find all necessary information about every white-, de-white-, black- and de-blacklisting. the sbl itself is just a regexp-speed-optimized list for the extension without any claim of being chronologically arranged.
i guess, that the size of the blacklist will remain increasing in future, so a speed-optimazation perhaps will be necessary in future. btw. has anyone ever made any benchmarks of this extension? i merely know that once there had been implemented a buffering.
oh, and if one wants to correct further regexps: just search by regexps (e.g. by vim) for /\\[^.b\/+?]/ manually and delete needless backslashes, e.g. \- \~ \= \:. apart from that the brackets in single-char-classes like [\w] are needless too. "\s" will never match. -- seth 11:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
fine-tuning: [1234] is much faster in processing than (1|2|3|4); and (?:foo|bar|baz) is faster than (foo|bar|baz). -- seth 18:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I benchmarked it, (a|b|c) and [abc] had difference performance. Same with the latter case — VasilievV 2 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
So should we be making those changes? (ie was it of net benefit to performance?)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
these differences result from the regexp-implementation. but what i ment with benchmarking is the following: how much does the length of the blacklist cost (measured in time)? i don't know, how fast the wp-servers are. however, i benchmarked it now on my present but old computer (about 300-500MHz):
if i have one simple url like and let the ~6400 entries of the present meta-blacklist match against this url, it takes about 0,15 seconds till all regexps are done. and i measured really only the pure matching:
// reduced part of SpamBlacklist_body.php
foreach($blacklists as $regex){
  $check = preg_match($regex, $links, $matches);
    $retVal = 1;
so i suppose, that it would not be a bad idea to care about speed, i.e. replace unnecessary patterns by faster patterns and remove double entries. ;-)
if you want me to, i can help with that, but soonest in august.
well, the replacement is done quickly, if one of you uses vim
the replacement of (.|...) by [...] can be done manually, because there are just 6 occurrences. the replacement of (...) by (?:...) can be done afterwards by
-- seth 23:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


Already reverted?

OK, here's another thing for lazy people: tools:~erwin85/xwiki.php. If you enter the title of a report, or link to it directly like xwiki.php?report=User:COIBot/XWiki/, it gets the diffs from the report and checks the database to see whether or not it's the top edit and how many pages still link to the domain. Could make reverting a bit less work. Beetstra, could you add a link in new reports? Suggestions are welcome. --Erwin(85) 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks useful, but using it on User:COIBot/XWiki/ it has the sentence "Retrieved 7 edits from User:COIBot/XWiki/ Searching for 'http://com.battiatoweb.%'." -- the domain is incorrect, but it appears to be searching for the correct domain.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The database uses that format for el_index, see database structure. The search value should be 'http://com.example.%' for and 'http://com.example.sub.%' for I guess it allows for faster indexing. The value is shown so you can check whether it actually searches for the correct value. --Erwin(85) 07:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm .. why not link it in the {{LinkSummary}} for the appropriate linkrecords? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Great work Erwin & appreciated. I think worth bearing in mind that the fact that the link placement is not the last edit doesn't actually mean it has been reverted though. I've found times when that was not the case (particularly when some language bot passes by). I'll look at the tool more later or tomorrow. --Herby talk thyme 09:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, you should check the link count and not only the edits. All edits since the reported one are now listed, thanks to Beetstra for the suggestion, and it works for all three bot reports. --Erwin(85) 10:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
And I adapted the {{LinkSummary}} accordingly .. someone suggestions for something which is more appropriate than '(clear?)'? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible instead of listing edits since the domain was added to have it do a linksearch on the apporpriate wiki, and return whether or not the page in question currently has the link? That would be much easier than looking at a bunch of edits since the diff provided.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Also your edit to {{linksummary}} makes things not fit :( I will fix it shortly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think it already does a linksearch on each relevant wiki, which makes this ridiculously useful :D  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It indeed counts the number of links. It now also returns the pages linking to the domain and marks reported pages with links with (L). --Erwin(85) 10:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
That is so good. BIG thanks Erwin (& we've just been chasing the same one :)). --Herby talk thyme 10:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I added support for User:Mike.lifeguard/removespam.js. That script does a search and replace for the given domain, set a default or given summary and show the changes. All you need to do is click save if you agree. Of course, you need to add the script to your monobook.js for each wiki. --Erwin(85) 11:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If you look at User:Mike.lifeguard/thing there is a script to load a script from meta, which you can use to load a standard script for every wiki. This lets you manage that script in one location.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the blacklist

For some time, folks all over have been wanting to rename the blacklist to remove the S-word. This would reduce the ability of people to complain about cases where a domain is legitimately blacklisted, but is not spam. Currently we get "Hey! You're calling me a spammer - that's defamation/libel!" even in cases where the complainant didn't link that site, so we are not calling them a spammer (nor are we necessarily calling their site spam). Since we legitimately use the blacklist to block domains which are not actually spam this is not a policy change. We already use the spam blacklist to block domains that are not spammed, and domains which are not spam - this change would reflect the reality and would reduce complaints as described above. Since there has already been discussion in the past, and that discussion was largely in favour, I have created bugzilla:14719. Please comment here, but if you know of places on the mailing lists, or on the wikis where this has already been discussed, it may be worth adding to the bug.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As a general note, I think it is a misconception that people define a link as spam, it is in my opinion the way it is added ('pushed'). I concur with renaming, though, as it just generates unnecessery 'problems', and takes the ones out which are neither spam nor spammed (redirect sites). Could we have some poll with some suggestions, e.g. on metapub? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Just go vote on the bug Mike has created I think. There was discussion here a while back where all agreed anyway - just nothing happened. --Herby talk thyme 09:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - yet another poll or discussion is not really necessary. There is already agreement to do this, it is only the implementation we're waiting for.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What is the new name going to be? Then I can prepare the bots for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
How about "Mike's list? --A. B. (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"Disallowed websites"? (the term blocked may be too provocative) -- Avi 06:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. —Giggy 06:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds fine to me - I'll suggest that on the bugzilla req.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 10:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should keep "blacklist" in the name, for integrity. So, if we're going to change it, I suggest "Website blacklist" or "URL blacklist" Huji 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I personally like "URL blacklist" or "External link blacklist" most. But all is fine with me. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I too like "URL blacklist".
For reference: External link exclusion list discussion from February/March. --Jorunn 08:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "Deprecated URLs"?--Cato 14:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

But they are not deprecated, they are blacklisted/disallowed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thinking aloud

Bear in mind if we list something now existing links do need removing or they will stay there I believe? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the blacklist no longer prevents you from saving a page with a blacklisted link on it - only if you're adding a link that wasn't there before. So more cleanup is needed, but the threshold for blacklisting is perhaps a bit lower. Since it won't block you saving the page, we can't rely on editors hitting the "spam blocked" screen and then removing the link. I'm actually unhappy about this change - I'd have been happier to see some other changes to the extension before that one. The complaint is that people didn't know what to do when the edit was blocked - so make the message clearer, and figure some way to make section editing when blocked actually work. Not sure why this bug got done and the others didn't. As well, it produced bugzilla:14114.
As well, the blacklist currently blocks in the edit summary too, which is a nice change.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am actually afraid that things go wrong with this 'fix'. If a vandal decides to blank the page, you can't undo because the link is still there (would be good if admin rollback and bot edits would be exempt from blacklisting). It does indeed give us the possibility to blacklist without removing first (to minimize disruption), but I still believe we have a cleanup job to do, it would be nice if we had a bot for that (but I know how difficult it is to make a bot select what actually needs removing). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the blacklist also now blocks links in the edit summary. (This is not very new - a month or two?)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious why admins aren't exempt from the blacklist... (I just checked) Kylu 01:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

COIBot reporting script

For those working on COIBot xwiki reports, you may notice that it doesn't add in your username. I have moved the relevant function from MediaWiki:Common.js to a gadget, available on the Gadgets tab of my preferences. Please enable it there.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Unified login abuse

It was only a matter of time until someone figured out that they could use their unified login to create over 150 wikipedia and over 50 wiktionary user pages with links to his own web site. While generally any user is free to do with their user page(s) as they please and the blacklists normally only deal with content pages, this is still the best place I could find to ask for educated opinions about the issue.

The user in question has registered earlier this month and did a handful of simple but seemingly useful edits on enwiki and frwiki (he was more productive on wiktionary since mid june). And at one point he seems to have gotten the idea to "update all Wikis" with his links. I guess that he'll never do anything productive on the majority of those projects (as he doesn't understand the languages), so that raises the question whether such behaviour is acceptable. What do the experts say? --Latebird 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NB: I have added \bhomonyme(\.eu|s\.fr)\b to stop luxo:JackPotte - not 100% sure whether this should stay or not.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I would ask for his site to be blacklisted from now on and not just for a while, when he started doing this over 3 weeks ago, I realised his intentions, and I did lock his account but that didn't stop him, since he added the links with his ip instead so locking him wouldn't have helped but I actually see this as abuse and something we need to look closely into and I'm not talking about that person only but "promoting someone's website on their userpage on multiple wikis if not all wikis", this probably needs more discussion....--Cometstyles 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so I'm actually late to the party... Good to see this looked into. Apparently his block has expired by now, because the entry that caught my attention was't added by an IP. FWIW (as a relatively rare guest to meta), I'd suggest blacklisting such links just the same as those spammed to articles. --Latebird 06:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be a permanent listing. They are abusing Foundation wikis with this link placement. --Herby talk thyme 06:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with herby, it doesn't matter if an anon adds the link or a registered account, its still regarded as cross-wiki spamming, as the user has made valuable contribs to a few wikis, we do not believe him to be a spammer but what he did is an abuse in all context, and I also agree with herby and would actually believe blacklisting that site permanently is the only option..--Cometstyles 09:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Was actually unaware of the history of this particular user. Consider it Added permanent  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 09:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This guy has gotten everywhere. I've just cleaned the "a" ones only so far. grrrrrr --Herby talk thyme 10:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(adding linksummary and usersummary to get COIBot to link reports here (if ever needed since it is now blacklisted)). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

By way of an update this is now the approach I guess. --Herby talk thyme 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well ...

(unless ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing all the links I can find. I think the userpages should be deleted, but I haven't time currently to tag the ones that haven't been done already. Perhaps someone could take that on?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User page linkage

yep, I've known for sometime now, but since there was a disagreement with locking it and blacklisting then was a bad idea since it was an active editor on several wiktionaries but as I mentioned above, I believe we need a global site blacklisting policy on meta which will apply to all wikis that do not have their own policies on what can be considered as "spam" or and what a user can or cannot add to their userspace in terms of external linking websites, food for thought anyone? :) ...--Cometstyles 10:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is worth a discussion (maybe not just here either). Over time it has amazed me how tolerant some places are to blatant advertising never mind mere link placement on user pages.
En wp is very odd. A while back I deleted a series of "user pages" with property rental advertising on that had been there a while & no one seemed bothered.
Now and particularly on Commons I tend to base my views on the users contributions. If they create a user page with links and add nothing to the project I tend to delete (& obviously if the behaviour is cross wiki). However if they are contributing to the project then I guess I can live with one or two "favourite" links of their.
It would be good to have other views. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, on the wikies where I am admin, I've blocked the user and deleted the spam/advertising user page. --M/ 11:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I was about to hit the block button on Commons but there was no user page & three valid looking uploads. It is a good example of the sort issues that maybe needs thought/discussion I guess. --Herby talk thyme 11:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The user has infact written to me: he asks for unblock and de-listing explaining that his project is non-commercial. I do not doubt about this, but I also have a question: "What if every single owner that run a non commercial site, has this kind of idea?" --M/ 12:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You may send them here or to info-en-l(at)wikimedia(dot)org to discuss this. However I don't see that a request will be successful; I do welcome discussion with this user. Whether the domain is commercial or not is mostly irrelevant - we are concerned with the behaviour here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It is disturbing, those pages should IMHO be deleted, even if the local policies are not stricly against it. I am a bit afraid to stuff beans here, but that type of behaviour can very easily be used (transclusion) to circumvent detection by the linkwatchers (which have already enough work with mainspace only).
Sites don't have to be commercial to be bad, it is the intention of linking to it. Links to commercial sites can be very viable, while links to non-profit organisations can be added in order to promote the organisation, or even to raise money for your (noble!) plan to build schools in some remote area in far-far-away. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Agree with Mike. This is not about the site content, it is about using (& abusing) Foundation wikis to promote a website that the user owns (on en wp would violate w:WP:COI anyway). --Herby talk thyme 12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with leaving this links blacklisted, this obvoiously is abuse, he had been warned before to stop these doings serveral times, but went on, his contributions were observed via the channel, since he had not stopped but seemed to spam even more heavier the decision to blacklist was absolutely right. If he just had added his homepage to his userpage at his homewiki no one would have said anything. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another xwiki user page abuse?

I came across this one today. It seems to have the makings of a non contributor who is creating user pages with personal links on. Any other views? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not good. Don't have time to remove links currently, but certainly worth doing (and probably blacklisting too).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
hmm seems problematic, I have removed all of the links and if he re-adds, we may have to blacklist it ..--Cometstyles 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Do I really have to add user space (not the talk) to the spaces to parse for the linkwatchers. It is just a small step for me .. --Beetstra public 21:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)