Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 195: Line 195:


{{done}} thanks --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 09:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
{{done}} thanks --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 09:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:To be complete:
:* {{spamlink|cceia.org}}
:* {{spamlink|policyiniovations.org}} --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


== china-opportunities.atspace.com ==
== china-opportunities.atspace.com ==

Revision as of 23:55, 16 November 2007

Protected MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is a page in the MediaWiki namespace, which only administrators may edit.
To request a change to it, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist.
Shortcut

Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist only affects pages on the English Wikipedia. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. Any developer may use $wgSpamRegex, another method to prevent the addition of spam links. However $wgSpamRegex should rarely be used.

See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

Dealing with requests here

Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks
  1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
  2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Is there a Spam project report, if so a permanent links would be helpful
  3. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regex - the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
  4. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. Request should be left for a week maybe as there will often be further relatede sites or an appeal in that time.
  5. Log the entry. Warning if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry you will need this number - 171991194 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

Those interested in contributing to this page may find it helpful to watchlist this page or create their own if they want to watch other pages as well. It effectively watches threads rather than pages.

There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. they are Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, and Discussion. Each section will have a message box explaining them. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

Requests which have been completed are archived. All additions and removals will be logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|171991194#section_name}}

Proposed additions

netteyiz.biz

WT:WPSPAM report is here. Pure copyvio site, non-English (though curiously, not spammed cross-wiki so far as I can tell). Being added by more than one IP/account, all SPAs. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence this one is continuing to place links? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing heard and no sign of recent links so  Not done. Come back if the issues re-occurs - cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html

This link was brought to meta, but they suggested listing it here and posting the meta conversation. Here it is:

Hate site solely exists to discredit one person, spammed across Wikipedia on various pages to do the same. No redeeming value. --Let You2 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Should this one not be listed at en wp rather than globally? I see the disruption for sure but I'd get that in the local blacklist asap personally. See if you can get some action from an admin on en wp, if not maybe nudge me again but it is outside what should be on Meta in my opinion, cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Herby, I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the process and don't know any admins on en wp. I agree with you about the disruption, though. Could you help? Perhaps you know an admin or something. --Let You2 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to list this request here (maybe copy what is here almost - ie A. B.'s bit) that should get you somewhere I hope, cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

--You and Me3 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the information I posted on meta in response to this request; it's what Herby alludes to in his post quoted above:
Jason Gastrich has a long history on en.wikipedia:


There are unrelated durangobill.com links on other wikipedias, but only en.wikipedia has links to the durangobill.com page criticizing Gastrich. None are in article space; here they are:


Also see this list of domains owned by Jason Gastrich; some of them have been blacklisted on meta:
--A. B. (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


al-moharer.net

The editor Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding ref links to the article Ahwaz territory that link to al-moharer.net. See diff, [1]. [Note added by Sarah: Guys, please be careful with these links. Admin Gnangarra said his antivirus and firewall went off when he followed one of the links. Sarah 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]

This website is particularly disturbing and promotes terrorist activity against the US government and the Iraqi government: "The organization basically represents Iraq and comprises all the Iraqi people and its legitimate and bona fide resistance forces which the occupation wants to destroy, with the Iraqi national armed forces as a high-priority target." al-moharer.net/mohhtm/mukhtar262en.htm

Again, "Rise up Iraqis! United like the fingers of one hand! Expel these US' swindlers, crooks and rogues! These who fled their countries of origins to loot others or to escape their pariah conditions.. Reject their mentally sick local puppets who lived on welfare that the Western countries grant to handicapped, and mentally ill. Aren't these who claimed to be mad are nothing but mad!" and "Bloodthirsty US rapacious and debased rogues.. You will pay dearly for your crimes!" al-moharer.net/mohhtm/abu_assur262.htm

Among other things, this website contends that there are "more similarities between Post-9/11 America and Third Reich Germany than just over-reliance on Blitzkrieg tactics. We finally determined that the two nations were following parallel political courses." The author of that articles is, supposedly, a US military officer. al-moharer.net/mohhtm/guenther262.htm

Another quote from a different article, "October 2nd, 2007, will be a milestone date in the history of the Movement for the Liberation of Iraq from American and Iranian Imperialism. On that day, the Supreme leadership of the Jihad liberation struggle, which is comprised of 22 fighting factions of the Armed Iraqi National Resistance, was founded." al-moharer.net/mohhtm/mukhtar262en.htm

There are more, you can find them for yourself. I don't find any mention of Ahwaz anything on the site. I suggest that this site should be blacklisted, but I don't know who to take that to. I do not know if this individual is dangerous or where he is editing from. Note, I am unsure as to how secure this website is regarding viruses, etc.

Note: I am transferring this from ANI as per admin suggestion. --Strothra 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just picked up on this one - given firewall/AV issues I would suggest this is listable as a security concern for now? --Herby talk thyme 11:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as a security concern as much as anything - may need reviewing from a content perspective - thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

france-photos.site.voila.fr

Special:Contributions/89.224.158.44--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 02:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

france-photos.site.voila.fr: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

89.224.158.44 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Added spamlink template. MER-C 09:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to not do this one for now. If they return I suggest a block straightaway if the same IP is used then review? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial linkspam on Kim Kardashian

Repeated addition of a link to a commercial site to purchase the Kardashian porn tape. Clicking on the link takes the reader to a site that has already been blacklisted. Article was semi-protected because of IPs adding the link; now a couple of long-dormant users have suddenly returned, apparently just to add this link to the article. One of these users has now been indefinitely blocked. The link to the website is: http:// truecelebz.com/KimKardashian/SexTape.wmv

Diffs: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Risker 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of no value to the project - should be listed --Herby talk thyme 13:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done also added the page it redirects to kim1.vivid.com--Hu12 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add spamlink template to make COIBot trace future additions (also cross-wiki). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.blogpost.com

I propose the following links be blacklisted. I came across them while browsing the history of these albums: Saturday Nights, Sunday Mornings, Her Name Is Nicole, American Gangster (album), I-Empire, and In Rainbows.

The above URLs link to a virus (as reported here) and the following blocked accounts and IPs disguise it as a link where they falsely claim the album was leaked.

I see there are other reports on this talk page and on the actual blacklist relating to ".blogspot.com" addresses. Perhaps the whole ".blogspot.com" domain can be blacklisted. Spellcast 23:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got pointers to general policy on blog stuff? --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was told some blogspot accounts are legit such as Robert Reich's robertreich.blogspot.com. So it's probably not a good idea to block the whole site. But the ones above should definitely be blacklisted though. Spellcast 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be blacklisted at the root domain. There are a very limmited few that are legitimate per policy and those should be treated/included on a case by case basis via whitelisting.--Hu12 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support that. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a future rise in whitelisting requests. Spellcast 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then even:
Let's see how it gets used. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

youareanidiot.org

This site is known to be infected with a virus, and used to vandalize links on User:Jimbo Wales. —Coastergeekperson04's talk 08:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

searchthesearch.googlepages.com

Spammers

Returning spammer, 59.95.178.186 has already been blocked for adding links. See WT:WPSPAM#spam.searchthesearch.googlepages.com. MER-C 12:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 12:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chitramala.com

Spammers

Has the balls to come back and add ~20 links after I pulled it over two days ago. See WT:WPSPAM#spam.chitramala.com. MER-C 11:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP is blocked. MER-C gave the user a final warning. Next placement gets a block then blacklisting as far as I am concerned - thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

picshik.com

picshik.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

Another returning spammer, blocked twice in August for adding the same spamlink. See WT:WPSPAM#spam.picshik.com. MER-C 11:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an hour or so :) --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Herby talk thyme 15:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cceia.org and policyinnovations.org

See also - Long term COI spamming

Accounts

RMcKenzie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
216.25.150.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Grantwishman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mikean23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shmifi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Areihing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.173.210.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.19.103.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
24.215.248.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Long term prsistant spammer since November 2005 --Hu12 09:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be complete:

china-opportunities.atspace.com

Mostly likely same user hopping around. The IP range is 78.154.52.

Highly persisent in advertising this company. Only thing this user is doing. Taking a lot of time and energy for me to get rid off. Warned several times on talk page. Hadoooookin 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

let's monitor. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - if they come back it might even be worth a short range block - 24 hours or so - to see if that made them realise? --Herby talk thyme 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Added another one above.) Is there a set number of times for the link to be blocked? Hadoooookin 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That number :) Blacklisted but I think we should review the options. Offline now so will log & review tomorrow. Thanks for the update & reporting, cheers --Herby talk thyme 20:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given this was a changing IP I blacklisted it yesterday. If anyone disagrees feel free to say so - otherwise  Done --Herby talk thyme 09:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

taopage.org

I am posting this request because I believe this site has extremely long term abuse of external links in several tao related articles. They primarily have very little information or simple information that is already included in wikipedia but provide "initiation" online courses for a fee and etc. like books. The addition of this site is almost always done by ip and dates back further than 2004. In this case maybe I am the spammer but since I've added the nomorelinks tag for that external links section and it was added anyway just recently in the taoism article. I believe this is first added [10] and been numerous removals since but always added by anonymous ip. 96.224.101.132 08:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that after some study realize this is the same user that creates additional but not so creative other sites that offer the same like freudfile.org in the Psychoanalysis article and related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.101.132 (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some links to differences on the pages they post too and some of the IPs responsible please so that we can evaluate the request - thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put in spamlink template, let COIBot tell it's use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per discussion--Hu12 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam from vandal Wayne Smith AKA Universe Daily

  • www.robertgbarrett.com
  • www.myspace.com/wendimurdoch

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily

Yale s (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals

www.belarussolidaritycampaign.co.uk

This was blacklisted form the Alexander Lukashenko page by an administrator, who termed the site as 'having no content' It clearly does. Now, if the link is deemed to be unsuitable then it ought to be discussed on the talk page. In my opinion the link in question, whilst granted is still a site under construction, is still a site that has relevance to the discussion of Lukashenko and Belarus. I propose that it be removed from the blacklist, so it may be linked to in the future if agreed in discussion on the talk page, but its dismissal by one administrator (zscout370) is at least a stifling of debate and objectivity, and at worse is censorship.

The website was just established and it has "Under construction" notices on the main page. The links that work are stating the goals for the group and begging people to join. This is pure linkspam, thus why I added it to the black list. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! The point I'm making is that the site is being updated and now does have information too. I concede that at the moment the site is not complete and as such is not worthy being a part of the current external links, however the blacklisting means that when that changes, or if wikipedia wishes to link to an article there in the future this will not be possible. I politely ask that the site be removed from the blacklist, (and also promise to refrain from adding it to the current list of external links).

--Belaruski 14:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklist isn't permanent and I don't intend for this link to stay here forever. But right now, I think it should stay. I will go back to the site, lets say, weekly and look at it. But we get so many external links about Belarus and we got so many campaign sites from the UK, Poland that me and others just remove them all. I am starting to clear out other Belarusian links too, so your site isn't the only one seeing removal. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance the link can be un blacklisted now? We recently held a demo in London, are a legally recognised body with international members and would like to set up a page of our own. A bit embarrasing when we can't link to ourselves! Thanks.--Belaruski 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Zscout370--Hu12 15:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why not?--79.65.196.5 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference data:
  • Accounts adding these links:
--A. B. (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting guidelines if they are applied accross the board. However if you will look at the site in question and argue that none of the articles are relevant, or may in the future be relevant as external links then you are in effect allowing censorship on wikipedia. I agree that it is very easy for just anyone to link to themselves on Wikipedia, but the site in question is clearly not spam. --79.65.244.108 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the blacklist, but I still do not think the site should be added to Wikipedia. We get many Belarusian campaign sites and this is just one out of many that look and feel the same. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears A.B. was correct and they only wanted it removed so they could spam it again. See [11]. Perhaps it could be added back. This isn't just spam, it's POV pushing spam. -- SiobhanHansa 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well rest assured it won't be added again. Wikipedia is clearly only as good as the individual with the biggest axe to grind and the most time on their hands. The link I posted is no less or more POV than the article or links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Day_of_Solidarity_with_Belarus But clearly objectivity is not what you're after. I would propose that the "not to be confused with" bit be reapplied as it's a point of clarification. But feel free to keep the argument one sided if that makes life easier for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belaruski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 Nov 2007

Invisionfree (removal)

I request InvisionFree be taken of the blacklist. -King SweaterHead 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some postings on the talk page of the Meta blacklist related to invisionfree.com links. Could you please remove or strip the links if you are going to keep it blacklisted? There seems to be quite many articles with invisionfree links in them here, and editors gets problems when the links are blocked.
Reference:
--Jorunn 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been added last week by User:JzG, quoting "WikiProject:Spam Investigation" (see [12]). However I cannot find any discussion on WikiProject:Spam in the July, August or September archives.
There appear to be about a hundred links on article pages. I've checked out 15 instances and only one of those (the actual InvisionFree article) seems to be appropriate. Given that our guidelines consider forums to be external links to be avoided, I don't know that the one article where it is appropriate is significant reason to remove if it has been spammed. Worryingly links to these forums are even being used as citations. Blacklisting may even have the side effect of lifting the quality of some articles slightly. -- SiobhanHansa 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually. The ZetaBoards article's HOMEPAGE is invisionfree. Why exactly do they have an article about something that is blacklisted exacly? -King SweaterHead 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I've done a little more research since unfortunately JzG appears to have retired. I looked through JzG's contributions around the time he made the addition. I couldn't find any explanation documented but he did remove a bunch of the links just after he listed it and he edited the ZetaBoard article. I looked into several of the links he removed, and while I can't fault their removal (they were all either inappropriate external links or inappropriate references), when I looked at the history of who added each link I didn't find anything I would consider to be evidence of a spam campaign, it looked more like individual enthusiasts making good faith but poor judgement additions (see a selection of the additions:[13][14][15][16]. However, I still tend to think the link should stay blacklisted with maybe the homepage only white listed for the ZetaBoards article. -- SiobhanHansa 18:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do people here not understand what Invisionfree forums are? I run one for a small football club that does not have a website and it's therefore the only on-line presence for the football club that I support. I take great exception to your assumption that me trying to define it as an External Link on the Wikipedia page THAT I CREATED is spam! No, actually it's a Link to a web page that is about the subject. Can I please request that this global Blacklist on all Invisionfree forums be removed? Elvisgresley 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invisionfree is then still not the only online presence. There will be items in newspapers (right?). The site itself does not assert the notability of the football club, that is governed by other sources. The link is useful as an external link (but it is not a must), and maybe for some parts as a reference (but then the specific link can be whitelisted). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. However seeing as I am unable to even post a link from this page to my forum, you're actually unable to make an informed decision on this matter, are you? Could you please be so kind as to let me know how to request a whitelisting? Thanks so much, xxx Elvisgresley 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help - much appreciated. Isn't blacklisting invisionfree forums something of a futile exercise based upon dogma more than anything constructive? 1. They are not spam as they do not sell anything (in fact they actually cost money to run and most of them aren't begging for donations every 5 minutes - if you get my drift!). 2. They can be linked to by setting up a redirect link to another non-blacklisted url. Elvisgresley 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed can not see the link, but if it is really the only link providing information, then the football club may not be notable .. indeed, we can not check, but then, everyone can create a forum on invisionfree, and then write a wikipedia page about it.
If it is your forum, then also our conflict of interest guideline may be of interest. Spamming is not about what is linked to, it is about how it gets linked. Invisionfree is self-published, and people certainly add the links to their own websites (again, see our conflict of interest guideline and our spam guideline). Forums do not comply with our reliable sources guideline, and as such, for now, blacklisting of such links is quite appropriate.
By the way, redirect sites should immediately be reported to the meta spam-blacklist, these are a general way of going around blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot, MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist is the whitelisting, the accompanying talkpage is where you can request whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to request that Invision forums be un-blacklisted. I don't see why there's any need to block *all* invision forums when it's probably only one or two that have been linked to in a spammy way.

I'm requesting this because I would like to restore the link to the "Different Worlds" forum in the Wikipedia Alternate History article. It was previously linked to in the Interactive Forums section of that article, because it's an active alternate history forum. That is, it's not a source but an on-topic link. It's not right to allow other forums to be linked to from Wikipedia, but not Invision forums. Akiyama 01:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

___ XLNT point Akiyama: are we now going to block all links to all forums? 'Cuz isn't it POV to decide to block the one? I've been forced into this situation by circumstance working on the [Louis "Red" Deutsch] Discussion Page. An earlier editor linked to __z4.invisionfree.com at z4.invisionfree.com/Bum_Bar_Bastards/index.php?showtopic=345&view=findpost&p=10945699__ .... This link's cool: a citation useful to our discussion and editing of the article and a citation that has stood since 29January2007. Now because of the lack of headers, I cannot save any changes to this page without deleting this other editor's contribution. Are there no grandfather provisions?! Hilarleo 14:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support the idea of using the spam blacklist to enforce WP:EL, but I will say that any and all forum links should be removed from articles per WP:EL.--Isotope23 talk 15:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I removed the link and commented in the # from that page.--Isotope23 talk 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I expect that the link was spammed, and hence it was put onto the spam blacklist. It is not the case that we use the spam blacklist to enforce guidelines (or policies; except maybe for WP:SPAM, but that is what this was designed for), but that is a secondary effect (it may be worth a discussion). Forum links do not comply with WP:EL and WP:RS, even if they may make excellent references, how do you know the information in the link is true (it is a forum, anyone can post there)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

beginner-sql-tutorial.com

This website is used by countless people who use SQL. This is a Tutorial for those who are beginner's to SQL and a reference to the experts in SQL. This tutorial explains the SQL concepts in detail with appropriate examples in a simple manner.

Adding this website in the SQL sections of the Wikipedia, will help the programmers to learn SQL better and write better sql queries. Please remove this website from the list of blacklisted websites and help this website to be reached by more programmers who visit Wikipedia.

Few of the pages I want to use this link are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sql http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insert_(SQL) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_SQL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join_SQL --206.218.218.57 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who added it... if anyone can confirm that the malicious scripting problem effecting beginner-sql-tutorial.com has been addressed, I've no objection to removing it. It was blacklisted due to a virus issue and if that has not been cleared up I'm not comfortable having it linked here.--Isotope23 talk 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion below about the blacklisting of this site due to malicious code. --A. B. (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined I hope I'm not overstepping the bounds here, but I just confirmed the continued malicious script execution attempts on that site with a colleague. It should not be delisted at this time and if the Anon is a good faith editor who isn't trying to infect other people's machines I suggest they do a virus scan on their machine.--Isotope23 talk 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the site should also be blacklisted at meta ASAP to protect the rest of Wikimedia + other MediaWiki projects. I've got to run -- can someone else get this going? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done on Meta but could do with a "request" in due course! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I just got done adding a request.--Isotope23 talk 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does mean that you can remove it from here if you want. No idea what the view/policy is on dupe entries tho? Thanks for the "request" I'll go log it shortly and if you bump into anything else like that you know where I am if I can help. Sorry I missed it before - been tidying up! cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no policy on that (though AB may know something I don't). Might be worth having a discussion on that.--Isotope23 talk 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think exploring the possibilities would be good. On Meta we are covering 700+ wikis and (I think) 2/3000 other sites using Mediawiki so "dangerous sites" would be appropriate there (IMO). (There is a sense in which I prefer to avoid the word "spam" in favour of external links as the usual spammer external link placer rarely see the links they place as spam.)
"Dual" listing is safe but the page gets long (& slow to load!) --Herby talk thyme 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.elliottgann.com

please can you reconsider this entry ? 217.167.252.201 10:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you have already appealed against this listing on Meta (where the blacklisting is) you would need to look at the whitelist here if you require a listing solely on en wp. The original meta request is here --Herby talk thyme 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
--A. B. (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course but the goal is not to make links in wikipedia for elliottgann.com, I have totally left this idea deep in a hole. I'm already in DMOZ but I think that Google use the wikipedia blacklist and it's really annoying for a little website like mine. Of course I did bad when I put some links in wikipedia but now what is the goal to let my website in the blacklist since I was the only "spammer". Should I regret all my life ? Please can you reconsider ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.167.252.222 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely possible, but you should then request removal from the global blacklist where it was added. We don't have the power to do it here. -- lucasbfr talk 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems

Discussion

beginner-sql-tutorial

I blacklisted this per a discussion on WP:ANI. It appears the site has been compromised, so I've temporarily added it here until this is resolved. If anyone notices the site no longer tries to load a trojan on viewing, feel free to boldly remove this entry at will and undo my recent removals from articles. Thanks!--Isotope23 talk 19:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urioste.eu / Urioste.wordpress.com must be removed from Spam-blacklist

http://www.Urioste.eu is the blog of Diego Urioste, writter of the National-revolutionary political wave and president of the asotation Tercera Vía in Spain ( http://3via.eu ), so I don´t undertand why his url has been blocked. For example here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacional_revolucionario . I have used the Urioste´s articles to write this definition so the blocking is absurd.

Thanks and sorry for muy poor english.

Rodamiento 89.131.201.43 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you were able to link it above would suggest it isn't blacklisted here on en.wiki and I don't see it in the list.--Isotope23 talk 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, is in the spanish version, I don´t know if there´s an blacklist discussion on spanish version. ROdamiento 89.131.201.43 01:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... To be honest, I don't know either; I don't use es.wiki. This page is strictly for the English version of Wikipedia. It doesn't effect es.wiki in any way. Maybe someone on the Spanish language Admin noticeboard can help you? By the way, your English is much better than my Spanish  :) --Isotope23 talk 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link you need is es:MediaWiki Discusión:Spam-blacklist athough there is nothing there yet but there are listings on their blacklist --Herby talk thyme 12:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

archive script

Eagle 101 said he had one running on meta, is it possible to get it up and going here?--Hu12 10:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good - Eagle hasn't been working on Meta for a while though & I've not seen anything (there was supposed to be a logging script too!) --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=171991194"