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
electrojets.com and related
Line 369: Line 369:


Hey everyone! I am really tired of removing Play Asia referral links. Users add them to articles like common "links", and then convert them to referral by exchanging it. Take {{ipuser|70.79.75.250}}, for example: his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumi_Koda&diff=prev&oldid=185897938 typo fix] is actually converting a Play-Asia plain link (which in itself is spam) to a referral link (links that start with ''play-asia.com/SOap'' are referral, those starting with ''play-asia.com/paOS'' are plain ones). Since these referrals are easy to catch and are not unique (for any referral link to a page there is a plain link going there) I suggest blacklisting ''play-asia.com/SOap''. There are many other referral sites as well, but these are easy to catch (not like Amazon ones). -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] ([[User talk:ReyBrujo|talk]]) 04:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I am really tired of removing Play Asia referral links. Users add them to articles like common "links", and then convert them to referral by exchanging it. Take {{ipuser|70.79.75.250}}, for example: his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumi_Koda&diff=prev&oldid=185897938 typo fix] is actually converting a Play-Asia plain link (which in itself is spam) to a referral link (links that start with ''play-asia.com/SOap'' are referral, those starting with ''play-asia.com/paOS'' are plain ones). Since these referrals are easy to catch and are not unique (for any referral link to a page there is a plain link going there) I suggest blacklisting ''play-asia.com/SOap''. There are many other referral sites as well, but these are easy to catch (not like Amazon ones). -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] ([[User talk:ReyBrujo|talk]]) 04:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
===electojets.com and related===
==electojets.com and related==
electojets.com, elect.awardspace.com/stepper/, 1lo.info/stepping
electojets.com, elect.awardspace.com/stepper/, 1lo.info/stepping
Links to numerous examples are listed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electric_motor#Spam] with more discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stepper_motor#Spam]
Links to numerous examples are listed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electric_motor#Spam] with more discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stepper_motor#Spam]
[[User:Mdsummermsw|Mdsummermsw]] ([[User talk:Mdsummermsw|talk]]) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[[User:Mdsummermsw|Mdsummermsw]] ([[User talk:Mdsummermsw|talk]]) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:This excessive linkage has been casuing considerable disruption on those pages and is continually placed against community consent.
:I am listing
:*electojets.com
:*elect.awardspace.com/stepper/
:*1lo.info/stepping
:On the blacklist - thanks for picking this up. {{done}} --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 16:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


=Proposed removals=
=Proposed removals=

Revision as of 16:28, 24 January 2008

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    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? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. 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 – 186611611 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions


    nourishkefir.co.uk

    Spamming,(with the exception of one edit) only to one page, but very persistently over several months, and changed to a new IP as soon as old IP was blocked. See Special:Contributions/82.43.43.219 and now Special:Contributions/86.148.43.114, which started up immediately after the first was blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam:
    Domain:

    Agreed & thanks for catching it -  Done --Herby talk thyme 13:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    qtcharts.com

    Adsense pub-3252843659449994

    Accounts

    80.95.102.226 (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)
    195.222.51.114 (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)
    89.146.183.253 (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)
    Sekretar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    A few problms with this. First it was spammed and has objectionable amounts of advertising which fails WP:EL. Some cross wiki activity with IP 80.95.102.226, however qtcharts.com seems to be primarily a en. issue. On another note, navigation seems to be misleading, or somewhat hidden compared to the adverts. opinions?--Hu12 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sekretar and one of his IPs spammed on the 15th after your first set of warnings on the 14th, so I left second warnings. I suggest we give him at least one more chance since he's basically been warned twice.
    I looked at 80.95.102.226's cross-wiki spam -- it's unrelated from what I can tell (different Adsense #s, domain owners, etc). I think this was an earlier user of the IP.
    That's my two cents worth -- I trust your judgement. --A. B. (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No further spamming has occured. Although We can watch it, I'll mark this as  Stale for now--Hu12 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More spam -- see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/qtcharts.com
    --A. B. (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --A. B. (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    tradingeconomics.com

    Domain


    Accounts

    --A. B. (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Self promotional spam posted by an IP's associated with the organization. Enough time wasted, not needed on the project.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    sweating-treatment.com

    Redirects to already-blacklisted megadry.com (see [1]). The spam continues [2] -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam domains


    Previously blacklisted domain


    Related domains


    Public registration data
    Lita Albuquerque Studio
    1629 18th St. Studio #4
    Santa Monica, California 90013
    United States
    BUIV
    542 Alameda St
    Los Angeles, California 90013
    United States


    Accounts
    • Blocked as an open proxy
    • Blocked as an open proxy
    • Blocked as an open proxy


    References
    --A. B. (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --A. B. (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ravehavenblog.com

    ravehaven.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 was blacklisted last month; now the spammers seem to have turned to spamming links to the site's blog instead. The blog looks like it just promotes the products available in the ravehaven.com store, with commentaries. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Previously blacklisted domain
    New spam domain
    Related domains
    Account
    Previous discussion
    --A. B. (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --A. B. (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    spreekillers.org

    Was directed here from AN. All details can be derived from my initial posting at WP:AN.

    I would appreciate inclusion of this link on the blacklist. User:Dorftrottel 10:03, January 18, 2008

    asianmediawiki.com lunapark6.com

    See WT:WPSPAM#spam.asianmediawiki.com spam.lunapark6.com. MER-C 03:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reposting this, wasn't dealt with. It's still a problem, with one IP per link addition across several ranges. MER-C 12:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Equilibrium Web Design's spam and vandalism on Wikipedia

    Accounts
    Spam domains
    • Previously blacklisted
    • Large hosting service
    Related domains
    Domain registration information
    Equilibrium Web Design
    29 Rosshill Avenue
    Glasgow, Scotland G52 4AU
    Previous discussion
    Blacklist request
    • Expand howimetyourmother.co.uk blacklist to include entire domain
    • Blacklist eqweb.co.uk

    --A. B. (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hum - throw in
    donhost.co.uk looks listable to me but as I'm involved I'll leave it to others. My recent contribs will explain! (& my individual listings could then be removed) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    donhost.co.uk looks like a hosting service based in Yorkshire; our spammer's in Scotland.
    New IPs:
    --A. B. (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking again how about BL users47.donhost.co.uk? --Herby talk thyme 14:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Master Magnets Ltd. spam and self-promotion on Wikipedia

    Spam domain
    • Already blacklisted
    Related domains

    I will blacklist these today:


    Spam accounts


    Promotional articles deleted as spam

    --A. B. (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    hummerhummer.com

    Domain tracking data

    Google Adsense: 7679382794826210


    Related domain


    Accounts


    Articles

    --A. B. (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    bikecyclingreviews.com

    Long-running, persistent problem. Links are added by Spanish IPs by one-edit IPs every month or so and are repeatedly deleted.


    Accounts


    Domain

    Google Adsense ID: 3710209712744659


    Related domain


    Reference (old)

    --A. B. (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Alfaintercom spam

    Domain tracking data


    Related domains


    Possibly related domains


    Accounts

    --A. B. (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Referral links for Play-Asia

    Hey everyone! I am really tired of removing Play Asia referral links. Users add them to articles like common "links", and then convert them to referral by exchanging it. Take 70.79.75.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), for example: his typo fix is actually converting a Play-Asia plain link (which in itself is spam) to a referral link (links that start with play-asia.com/SOap are referral, those starting with play-asia.com/paOS are plain ones). Since these referrals are easy to catch and are not unique (for any referral link to a page there is a plain link going there) I suggest blacklisting play-asia.com/SOap. There are many other referral sites as well, but these are easy to catch (not like Amazon ones). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    electojets.com and related

    electojets.com, elect.awardspace.com/stepper/, 1lo.info/stepping Links to numerous examples are listed at [3] with more discussion at [4] Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This excessive linkage has been casuing considerable disruption on those pages and is continually placed against community consent.
    I am listing
    • electojets.com
    • elect.awardspace.com/stepper/
    • 1lo.info/stepping
    On the blacklist - thanks for picking this up.  Done --Herby talk thyme 16:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    VBS.TV

    The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

    I am requesting the removal of VBS.TV from the blacklist based upon the following findings/ reasons.

    1. Vbs.TV is a known media outlet, as it was featured on the cover of the New York Times business section (November 19th, 2007).

    2. Is contextually relevant for the "Sasha Grey" wiki entry. She links to the site herself from her homepage www.sasahgrey.com and her myspace personal blog. She even has a blog entry on the VBS.TV site. This is an in depth interview, the only one of its kind, and she reveals many details not otherwise covered in her CBS interview or in any talk shows or other existing interviews. The video link can be found here: http://www.v b s.tv/shot-by-kern/sasha-grey/ (sorry wiki wont allow url link)

    3. Toxic Williamsburg is the only documentary that covers the Williamsburg oil spill. VBS was the only major media outlet to ocver this. It is contextually relevent to the wiki article inclusion in the following section of the Williamsburg wiki entry. The entry would be invalidated if not for the VBS site. The documetary covers the oil leak and the nuclear storage facility. Linking to this content would make a stronger entry into the article. It can be found here: http://www.v b s.tv/toxic/ (sorry wiki wont allow url link)

    "History of Toxic Sites in Williamsburg

    Luis Garden Acosta, Founder/President & CEO of El Puente, a highly respected community human rights institution that promotes leadership for peace and justice through the engagement of members (youth and adult) in the arts, education, scientific research, wellness and environmental action has called Williamsburg "the most toxic place to live in America" in a documentary created by Williamsburg based VBS organization. Other rare cancer clusters in Willamsburg have been reported in the NY Post, CBS news and Geraldo at Large on Fox.[5]

    4. The wiki entry on "Mountain Top Removal" completely misses the entire documentary by VBS.TV on this. This is, again, the only documentary of its type, and yet it is not sited. This documentary actually gives credibility and indepth information concerning this enivronmental issue. It can be found here. http://www.v b s.tv/toxic/ (sorry wiki wont allow url link)

    5. The wiki entry on Alberta tar sands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands) could be further validated by the VBS.TV documentary on the alberta tar sands, called Toxic Alberta. This film is the only documentary covering the tar sands. It has garned much attention to the tar sands issue by shedding light on a topic that was virtually unknown prior to the films existence.

    There are many examples of even more videos that are contextually relevant. Spike Jonze interviews with M.I.A., Kanye West, and even the lack of inclusion in the Spike Jonze wiki is inappropriate considering he is the creative director of VBS.TV. In closing, this site is a vital media outlet that has consistently put out unbiased media about issues that the main stream covers. There is not a single piece of spam on the site, and I enthusiastically encourage anyone who questions the integrity of the site and content to view it yourself. Read the New York times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/business/media/19vice.html) or the Wired Magazine article (http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/magazine/15-11/ff_vice)

    thanks Subsystemm (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC) subsystemm[reply]

    Evidence of abuse
    :Accounts
    Cazzer t (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    VBS.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Gabrielleshaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Vicklane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Vicebs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Stickitminister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Calibrated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Aslan2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    99.233.110.46 (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)
    66.17.190.246 (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)
    132.170.34.38 (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)
    74.99.254.60 (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)
    69.236.188.94 (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)
    Dgbarnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Myshkin66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Subsystemm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    see also →MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/12#www.vbs.tv--Hu12 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cross Wiki spam Accounts

    Melanieh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contributions/Melanieh
    Vicegermany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Vicegermany
    MaiTaiMünchen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/MaiTaiM%C3%BCnchen
    Pepples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Pepples
    84.191.237.45 (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) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/84.191.237.45
    87.187.85.203 (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) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/87.187.85.203
    Time for Meta BL--Hu12 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined given the site-owner's persistent and widespread abuse in spite of requests and warnings to stop. If an established, high volume editor requests whitelisting of a specific page that can serve as a reliable source for use in a citation, we can reconsider. --A. B. (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a reasonable and considered answer. Your list of spam includes actual entries that provided source material and article citations that improved the strength and character of an article as VBS.TV is a known and credible media outlet. I've reviewed your "spam" list of what people had done prior to me being here and found that each one was a reasonable addition. I will admit that they made a mistake, but refuse your calling them SPAM. Would it be fair to say that they should contacted, as you call it, a credible Wiki Editor to make the changes? You said that a known and credible wiki editor must of used the VBS site for reference, they did this already. The actions the interns took was due to lack of understanding. Now you want to marginalize a major FREE magazine, TV, and film company that shares a similar vision of keeping information free and unencumbered by outside interest. You might argue that they were acting to gain, but they cannot gain. Everything that is from VICE media is free. Should we interpret that as Wikipedia thinks VICE Broadcast Service is irrelevant whilst CNN, New York Times, Wired, Fortune, Forbes, Yahoo News, and many other media outlets site and write about it? I am not getting a sense that you are working in the interest of keeping Wikipedia relevant and accurate, you just are punishing the ignorant, which amounts to beating a child. All this said, I challenge you to show me how VBS.TV content inclusion made any of the articles less relevant, biased, and or otherwise harmed the value of information. I argue that VBS.TV has helped Wikipedia content, and now you are undermining the value of articles by striking it spam. Very short sited.

    I will collect a list of Wiki Editors writing about every single Wiki entry that VBS.TV has covered, in many cases before Wiki even had an entry, and solicit them to argue on our behalf. Although I feel that lobbying Editors to change and influence a decision is in and of itself inappropriate, as your asking me to send them an unsolicited message which, as defined by the very entry for Wikipedia, is SPAM.

    For the record, this will not happen again with VBS content. They had no one to guide them, and now I am here to help them navigate them through things such as this. Can you not recognize this as being an honorable and credible attempt to fix mistakes made by, literally, interns?

    Subsystemm (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I second this request. I am trying to add an interview from their site ./player.php?bctid=1364183270&bccl=MTMyMzI3NzIxOV9fRVRD to add content to Penny Rimaud's wikipedia entry. Very justified, seeing as it's a video interview with Rimaud and I do not work for VBS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.129.118 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined again. Reasons have already been given. The addition of a random IP's request changes nothing --Herby talk thyme 09:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    unrealroyal.com

    This site was added to the blacklist under a presumption of being an "attack site" against a Wikipedian. Whether or not that was at one time true, it is no longer true. Sites which "clean up their act" may be removed from the blacklist. Since this site is owned by a Wikipedian, there should be a presumption of good faith in this case, and it should be removed. Thank you. Wjhonson (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See here --Herby talk thyme 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence is there *presented* which we can all independently judge. Statements are made, and counter-statements are made, no evidence is shown. The removal section is for the *removal* of sites previously blacklisted. Removal not only covers the area of sites added by accident but also covers the removal of sites which have "cleaned up their act" as our policy states. I dispute now, and have disputed since I was made aware of it, that this site was ever an "attack site" or a "harassment site" as the allegation, without evidence, was made. The site was and is a criticism site. The blacklist is not a place from which to silence opponents, silence dispute, or solve content issues related around sources. That is not the proper use of this blacklist which was set-up for blocking spam sites. Regardless of all of that, there is a cause for removing a previously blacklisted site, from the blacklist. A criticism site should never be blacklisted, criticism is the basis for democracy. Without criticism we have censorship. Wikipedia should never be put in the position of silencing dissent. Wjhonson (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author may have attempted to clean up his act a bit on his blacklisted site but he hasn't done so anywhere else. See [5]He continues to accuse the subject of a BLP and the subject of his web site of fraud citing other highly dubious sources that would never meet WP:RS policies. The author's intent is clear.--Lazydown (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-wiki criticism does not have and should not have any bearing on blacklisting a site. Whether a site's source meet out WP:RS policies does not have and should not have any bearing on blacklisting a site. A site is blacklisted for a few narrow reasons. This site did not, and does not, meet the criteria for blacklisting IMHO. The blacklisting admin was an involved editor and in-fact was the original creator of the article. This at the very least gives an *appearance* of impropriety whether or not it actually is such a case. Even if the site had at one time, for which no evidence was presented which we can all independently judge, it does not currently apparently. Thus per our policy that "sites which clean up their act" can be removed, it should be removed from the blacklist. What the owner of the site does in other venues, has no bearing on this case.Wjhonson (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Wjhonson that the site should be removed from the blacklist. It is undisputed that the subject of the site is attempting to lay claim to a monarchical title. If one is going to attempt to become a king, one can't expect to be immune from public comment. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    szlemberk.xf.cz/

    I have no idea why it's blocked, I want to use it as an external link in an article.--The Dominator (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't cross post MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#szlemberk.xf.cz.2F--Hu12 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to have been blocked at meta.wikimedia.org.--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaning?--The Dominator (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to make the request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We will look into the archives to find out why it was blacklisted, but You could consider to put it on the local whitelist, if it is not removed. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#szlemberk.xf.cz, thanks, --birdy (:> )=| 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see Foreign-language links External links policies on Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    hanazagorova.xf.cz

    I don't know why it's blocked? This web pages contain complete hyperlink discography.

    idebate.org

    I don't know why this URL was blocked. The International Debate Education Association is a large debate association that had been referenced in many entries relating to academic debate. If you Google debate, you'll see that the site comes up near the top and offers a lot of information on a variety of debate topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.246.210 (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here this is why it was added--Hu12 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hu12, your reasons for blacklisting wiki.idebate.org are understood (although objectionable to some extent). But, part of the problem is that you've blacklisted www.idebate.org, which is an effectively separate site with dozens of features related to IDEA's work that are entirely unrelated to the newer wiki.idebate.org. The records show that www.idebate.org was never a url that was "spammed". It seems, therefore, that at least www.idebate.org should be removed from the blacklist at this stage. -- Frrt888 (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When an organization spams us so persistently and in spite of so many warnings that we are forced to blacklist their site, we go ahead and blacklist all their domains as a defensive move.
    Typically, 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.
    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/.
    no Declined --A. B. (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm "Debaterx" (I hope it's ok that I've logged in under a different account to make this case/apology since "Debaterx" has been blocked). Certainly, I owe numerous apologies. My intent on Wikipedia was, to a degree, to promote Debatepedia (in my editorial involvement on the wiki). Yet, I am not part of the International Debate Education Association. In this way, it's not a case of the IDEA "organization" spamming you, as you say. This seems highly important, given the fact that you're blacklisting the organization's entire domain. Of course, I did some things wrong on Wikipedia and pushed too hard, for which I can only ask for forgiveness. But, there are numerous misunderstandings about how this all played out that need to be clarified.
    Hu12, you noted multiple times that links were being made to empty debate articles on Debatepedia, and this was a central part of the claim that Debatepedia was "spamming" Wikipedia. This is not the case. I think the problem was that numerous pages were down in November for a day or so due to a namespace problem on the site. You may have viewed those pages at that time - unfortunate timing. I hope you're able to check those links again, because they were to highly developed presentations of nearly all the public pros and cons and evidence in the debates covered by those articles. Quite the opposite of them being "empty pages" as you may have seen (which would be the worst kind of "spamming"), those pages were some of the best resources on the web on their respective topics, and seemed to be worthy of an external link on their corresponding Wikipedia pages. The reasons I ignored your first warnings was because they were falsely based on the presumption that I was making links to "empty pages", and while I contended that these were not "empty pages", I received no reply. I soon stopped making links on articles after additional warnings.
    Regarding links made to discussion pages. I initially thought that this was acceptable to talk on a discussion page about a related wiki article. When I was warned that this was not the case, I stopped. Subsequently, I thought that it was acceptable to talk with users on their personal pages about specific topics they had covered and specific, corresponding debates on Debatepedia. When I was told this was unacceptable and "spamming", I stopped. Finally, I emailed Wikipedians that were going to the December Wikipedia:Meetup in DC, that I was also hoping to attend. This is explicitly condoned on the Wikipedia:Meetup page, where it says that wiki and open-source projects unrelated to Wikipedia can be discussed at the meetup. My emailing those specific users that were attending the Meetup seemed acceptable in that context. It seems this was the source of the black-listing.
    Finally, it is important to understand about Debatepedia that it's not exactly a new, unreliable wiki, as is also a major claim leveled against the the links as "spam". Most of Debatepedia's debate articles (around 500) are drawn from the Debatabase, a 7-year old project of the International Debate Education Association, which has a strong editorial review process. So, while the wiki is relatively new, it's content is actually well established, editorially reviewed, and reliable.
    But, most importantly, the IDEA "organization" was not spamming you and so it does not make sense to punish them so severely as you have done. Since they have a long-standing page up on Wikipedia, it doesn't sound like they'd "spammed" you before. You should note that after you blocked me "Debaterx", no additional links were made to wiki.idebate.org (and none were ever made inappropriately to www.idebate.org). Clearly, blocking me was a sufficient measure as no "spamming" has occurred since. Blacklisting all of IDEA's domains, including wiki.idebate.org, therefore, seems excessive. Why didn't you just block me and see what the result would be first.? It concerns me because IDEA is a reputable organization in the debate world, of which I'm a part. -- 70.219.193.228 (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    {{db-copyvio}}

    Problem with the blacklist: I want to use the db-copyvio speedy deletion tag to get an article deleted. The db-copyvio tag has as a parameter the url of the website which is being copied. The website being copied is a blacklisted one, ezinearticles. Oops, the spam filter kicks in. This is bad.--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Try adding without the http:, the checking admin will copy & paste to check it.--Hu12 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or don't provide the link in the db template, and add it below it (put <nowiki></nowiki> around). Or put it on my talk page and I'll have a look. -- lucasbfr talk 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Ho

    I'm new to dealing with this blacklist, so I hope that this is the right place to report my problem and ask for help. Anyway, I want to report the basic facts about Fred Ho's cancer, and the best source seems to be a primary source written by Ho (which I'm using, properly, for only basic facts, not opinion or interpretation). Unfortunately, this source is a blog on MySpace (the guy's a musician, after all), which is blacklisted. At first, I tried to get around this by removing the "http://", but that looked terrible (in the {{cite web}} template). So instead I made a TinyURL, but that's blacklisted too (and it wouldn't be a good long-term solution anyway). Then I considered abandoning {{cite}} for a URL inside <nowiki>, but that doesn't work very nicely for the reader. Finally, I decided to link to non-blacklisted site that reprints the diary, but it doesn't seem to have an archive of back issues (so it's a decidely inferior resource). The diary (or some of it) is supposed to published as a book this year; but until then, what should I really be doing? (Note that I am an administrator, if that makes it easier for me to do things by myself.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    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]
    • Great news, Ive written a script that can archive this page given the templates that we use, I can create a approved archive along with a rejected archive if people are interested. βcommand 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interested" - bit of an understatement there :) Great news - please feel free to help/supply the script. I tend to leave stuff around a week in case anyone shouts or adds more (archives once done should be left alone). How would you handle the "discussion" type bits? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First question, do you want approved and rejected request in separate archives? as for the discussions we could get Misza bot over here for things older than 30 days. βcommand 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think one archive, seperate sections, like it is currently[6], not sure if the script can do that, but if so, doubt there would be objections in implementation...--Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no simple way of editing sections using the bot. (section editting is evil). it would just be one large archive. βcommand 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blogspot.com

    See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam § Time_for_blacklisting_blogspot.com.2C_with_whitelisting_of_specific_domains.3F

    I added countingcrowsnew.blogspot.com, freemodlife.blogspot.com, and googlepackdownload.blogspot.com to the blacklist. I made a previous report about the blogspot sites and they're being spammed by the same blocked sockpuppet who I filed a report about here. Spellcast (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I've also added b5050-raffle.blogspot.com, gpd2008.blogspot.com, and itsleaked.blogspot.com. They were being spammed by the same blocked sock in that report. Spellcast (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to blacklist the domain then whitelist where needed but some heavy flak is likely to arrive? --Herby talk thyme 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From an en:Wikipedia mission perspective (though possibly not your personal perspective:) a bigger issue than the flak that will be generated is the disruption to editing. I believe a lot of pages, particularly biographies of living people, contain legitimate links to the subject's blog - many of which are hosted on blogspot. Simply blacklisting and then waiting for whitelisting requests will likely
    1. overwhelm the whitelist page here and on meta (which given you are one of the most active admins on both, may not be ideal for you!)
    2. be confusing and frustrating to a lot of editors especially newbies, but also any who are not familiar with the blacklist/whitelist set up
    3. lead to a loss of legitimate links and legitimate edits as people struggle to work out whether to keep their edit and lose the link or the other way round while any whitelist request is ongoing.
    I think a move like that will take some careful planning and preparation to avoid these issues (might also help cut down some of the heat). One way or another, I think we need human editors to assess the current blogspot links on article pages and enter appropriate ones on the whitelist before the blacklisting goes into effect. I don't think such a move will cut out most of the flak though, so we might want to ensure there are other admins involved to help spread the weight, and a nicely presented page of evidence of the issues the domain causes to point people to.
    Blogspot certainly gets spammed a lot more than most domains, and I support blacklisting. But It's still a domain that has a lot of good links and I think it's important to think through how a move like that will impact people, and to adjust to the situation. -- SiobhanHansa 13:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Briefly - needs quite a bit of thought but equally is worth that amount of thought --Herby talk thyme 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many, many legitimate links to the domain, not only to blogs belonging to article subjects but to blogs belonging to Wikipedia contributors. Better to blacklist individual blogs as needed. --bainer (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why Wikipedia contributors would be adding their own blogs? A very limited number of blogs actualy meet WP:RS and even fewer still meet the requirements of WP:EL or are a blog that is the subject of the article or an official page of the articles subject. There are currently 32,916 blogspot.com Blog links on Wikipedia, if whitelisting even a thousand "legitimate links", its worth it.--Hu12 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've presented some convincing reasons to leave certain blog links out of Wikipedia, but not a reason to leave all blog links out. Wikipedia contributors might want to link to their blogs because, you know, it is possible for said contributors to frequent websites on the internet other than Wikipedia :P See WP:COMMUNITY. There is also a performance cost to whitelisting and blacklisting; as far as I can tell, 1000 whitelisted entries costs more computationally than 1000 blacklisted entries (instead of using one large regex, which is how the blacklist works, you're doing 1000 individual regex replacements). GracenotesT § 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression server load was something we were supposed to leave up to the developers to worry about. If they see an issue and ask for a reassessment that would be one thing, but its not a good argument against a tactic without their weight behind it.
    The suggestion isn't that all blogs should be banned. the suggestion is that this particular domain gets spammed so much it would be beneficial to the project to blacklist it and only white list the ones that are appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hu12 I think it's important not to overstate the case here. Not all of the ~32,000 links (assukming the 1K of good links estimate) that are not legitimate external links or citations will actually be harmful to Wikipedia. While editors' own blogs on their user pages aren't necessary to the project, in the vast majority of cases they do no harm and may help editors fell a bond that connects them to the project. Many more will be links from discussions and projects. While I don't think that's a reason for keeping a domain that is also being spammed so much - it's not the case that we do 32,000 links worth of "good" by removing them. For the most part we only really benefit from the spam and poorly placed article links that go. -- SiobhanHansa 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent, crosspost my post from WT:WPSPAM)

    The rule \bblogspot\.com is (currently) not on COIBot's monitorlist. Some of the sub-domains have been added via WT:WPSPAM, or have been caught by the automonitoring of COIBot (mainly because the name of the editor is the same as the name of the subdomain on blogspot.com).

    Still, a linksearch on the resolved IP of blogspot.com (72.14.207.191) results in a mere 118 results (all COIBot linkreports)! Often the multiple use of the single subdomains is not a cause for blacklisting, as they may only have been used once or twice. Also, I suspect there are tens of thousands of blogspot sub-domains out there, but these are only the links that are caught because the wiki username overlaps with the domainname of the subdomain (or have been reported here). Would this cumulative behaviour warrant blacklisting of \bblogspot\.com .. here, or even on meta? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Appropriate links may indeed be a problem, though the majority will fail some or many of the policies and guidelines here (or don't even have to be a notable fact, or do not need to be a working link while being mentioned; "Mr. X has a a blog on Blogspot.<ref>primary reliable source stating that the blog is the official blog</ref>"; we are not a linkfarm), and I would argue that the spam/coi part of the problem becomes a bit difficult to control... --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Crosspost spamlink template for blogspot.com to link this discussion to the linkreports from COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try to remember how frustrating generic, unexpected spam blocks can be for new and incautious editors. Last time I "checked", if you make an edit with Internet Explorer and you post it directly without preview (two things you should never do), then if the spam blacklist comes up your text is gone. Back arrow gets you the original text of the article. Edits that die that way may not get remade, and they may sour the editor on further contributions. I don't think there should be any blocks on top-level domains or large general purpose Internet sites. 70.15.116.59 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree in this case - there's concern that the dynamic IP spamming it is using it to perpetrate scams or send out computer bugs. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no way we can realistically do this. blogspot has an Alexa traffic rank of 12 - it's higher than Amazon.com - and has well over 30,000 links on en.wp alone. Adding this would be incredibly disruptive to thousands of articles. Unless someone wants to go through all 32,000 links to find the ones that can be kept so we can whitelist them, there's no way we can do this. The ones that are spam should be removed and blacklisted, but WP:EL and WP:RS are not very good reasons to completely forbid links to a domain. Mr.Z-man 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No edit box in the Spam filter notice

    Why does the "Spam filter notice" not contain an edit box? This necessitates pressing the back button which in IE (I'm reluctantly using it at the moment) means all edits are lost. There's a possible way around it, to open the article in a new tab, remove the spam link, save it, and then hit refresh in the "Spam filter notice" window to resubmit, but this is a hack and we shouldn't be inconveniencing innocent users like this. (Has happened to me twice already today, once I was adding a new section to a talk page and couldn't save because the existing talk page had a blacklisted link it... like wtf?!) --kingboyk (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Header

    I put the header in a template to reduce size of this request page and included MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist/Indicators which is loosly based off of RCU's indicators.--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Google "I'm feeling lucky"

    Would the following regexes work?

    • \bgoogle.com/search?.*&btnI
    • \bgoogle.com/search?btnI

    —Random832 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklist logging

    {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}} →(replacing '0' with the correct "oldid" (ie. permalink) example shown here).

    For example:

    {{WPSPAM|182725895#Blacklist_logging}}

    results in:

    See WikiProject Spam report

    This should aid in requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and for use with the entry log here. I've added a snipit in the header --Hu12 (talk)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=186611611"