Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 178.103.97.231 (talk) at 09:08, 19 April 2012 (→uncoveredinterests.com). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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 – 488141284 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    signup.leagueoflegends.com

    oilpaintingfactory.com

    Spammers

    Anonymous editors keep on reverting edits to retain Oilpaintingfactory.com links, removing other references. -- Agung mayi (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Another spammer made several edits and made the links again to oilpaintingfactory.com

    Changes made just now. Still monitoring -- Agung mayi (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This anonymous editor continues to remove references and add oilpaintingfactory.com links. Can we please block this URL now? And this IP address? -- Agung mayi (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In just one afternoon, the user in the IP address has made 11 efforts to replace links with oilpaintingfactory.com links. -- Agung mayi (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    entireeducation.com


    Spammers

    MER-C 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like this has ceased. --Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    socrata.com

    This website seems to be used for user-provided content; the user in question has been linking to pirated versions of Beatles albums there diff1 diff2, and has now posted a long but not very coherent attack at Jimbo's talk page on unnamed editor(s) as a "bad man" who "makes lobby" for EMI (copyright holders) and Apple Corps., or so I deduce (English is not Tom111's first language, possibly not even his/her second or third). Their theory is that pirated recordings are okay, because they are for "education and culture (purposes)" knowledge. While I was typing this, User:MuZemike blocked Tom111 as a sockpuppet of User:Crazy1980, so presumably this is not the only time spamlinks to this site have been posted. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel that is going to help. However, he has used different sites to continue in said spamming, judging from the recent IPs and socks he has used. --MuZemike 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Object - seems to have plenty of legitimate uses, although I can't say one way or the other whether it is used legimiately much. Indeed, it even has an article here! It may be an idea to write an edit filter and monitor what it is used for in practice, at least for a couple of months. Egg Centric 21:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd tend to agree with Egg Centric; not seeing the link inappropriately used other than the banned sockpuppet's attempts. If we block socrata, he'll just find another unblocked place to post it. His edits are easy enough to spot; best to just block him on site and move on. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    --Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    allonestopshop.webs.com

    links
    accounts

    Repeated addition of Commission Breakthrough spam page by multiple IPs over several days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added several to the blacklist in the past; but as a general rule, I don't like to both report and add the link to the SBL myself - I like to have a second level of review of the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    boatshoesbin.com

    Instances

    Usage of the link to "source" various statements at Boat shoes. Jojalozzo 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No spamming activity with this link in two weeks. Jojalozzo 03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    thebsdb.com

    thebsdb.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

    82.236.119.236 (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)

    Instances: [4], [5], [6]

    The site claims it is an unbiased software comparison site but vendors pay to have their software listed and promoted. Jojalozzo 16:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No spamming activity with this link in two weeks. Jojalozzo 03:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Partyanalyst.com

    partyanalyst.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

    The link was first spammed by an IP then by User:Kamalakardandu (where he has been warned multiple times on his talk page + his contribs indicate the same). The articles Elections in Andhra Pradesh, 2012 assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh (which ive nom'd for deletion) + 2012 elections in India as well as the requisite pages of 2012 elections that exist on the latter page have featured this link at some point or the other. (the other links on his contribs are probably spam too)Lihaas (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The COIbot report shows 3 users adding these links. One is the IP address (which I have blocked for 4 months, as that is the length of time it's been adding these links), one is Kalamakardandu (now indef blocked as a spam-only account), and one is an established editor who probably added a few of these links as valid references. COIbot shows only recent additions, however. Special:LinkSearch of *.partyanalyst.com shows a whole bunch more. Some may be legitimate, some may be spam, hard to tell. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw the site it seems not t be a media one reporting (which link ssome stories welsewhere) but a pvt org catering to other cos and with registration)Lihaas (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note others beyond the COIbot report have been adding this link. 122.169.253.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for example. I've cleaned up the links; many were refspam inside article headers of all places.
    During my cleanup I observed that most of the stuff reported on that site is third-hand, and could be referenced to official sources or reliable secondary sources instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what hthat means, but is it blcklisted? its done more harm than good on WPLihaas (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't blacklisted now. I note that after the cleanup I performed a couple weeks back, several new links have been added to articles, but none were re-added to articles from which I removed them. Therefore I am skeptical that these are being added in bad faith or as an attempt to spam. It does seem to be a secondhand source though, and not always inappropriate. A job for XLinkBot perhaps. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    mangakaotaku.com

    mangakaotaku.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

    Accounts

    This account appears to exist purely to add links to the above site to Anime and Manga-related articles on Wikipedia. The site itself contains no useful content that is not taken from other sources - including Wikipedia itself (compare [7] and [8]) but is stuffed to the gills with advertising and affiliate links. Shiroi Hane (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    facebook.com/superherotaisen

    facebook.com/superherotaisen: 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

    IPs

    These IPs have been adding the same link to this unofficial Facebook fan page. As the IP range is too wide, and we do not need to prevent helpful edits to Kamen Rider × Super Sentai: Super Hero Taisen, I believe it's just easier to add this one facebook sub-URL to the blacklist.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    mideastjournal.com

    mideastjournal.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

    Porn, plain and simple. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. There is no evidence of abuse. The domain mideastjournal.com used to belong to Middle Eastern Journal, a legitimate publication. It is apparently now defunct. All references to it on Wikipedia have been converted to archive.org links, where the original articles can still be found. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    eye-sim.com

    eye-sim.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

    Accounts

    This one has been spammed by the site owner on various pages from various accounts and IPs ever since the site came on line last year. Occasionally he also hijacks other external links. He's accumulated lots of talk page warnings on various pages, but ignores them. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Adsense google_ad_client = pub-7261132838787031 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta
    Track - Report)
    plus Added. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    taxreturnsperth.com.au

    taxreturnsperth.com.au: 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

    Link has been spammed on only a few articles at a time by these accounts, but on a broad range of articles. Ravensfire (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Registrant
    TAXWISE WA PTY LTD
    Registrant ID
    ABN 71 099 777 170
    Deliberate WP:SOCK spamming.. Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    University of Cambridge videos

    The new user EdwardWilsonLee is adding videos of lactures at the University of Cambridge, for which "E. Wilson-Lee" claims the copyright. Wilson-Lee is already reported as spammer ([9])

    The first link is added at On the Origin of Species ([10]) and Darwinism ([11]). The second link is added at Dante Alighieri ([12]), Divine Comedy ([13]) and Inferno (Dante) ([14]). The third link is added at Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ([15]).

    With the series consisting of 5 lectures, it is likely that more is to come. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    murderuk.com

    Someone using multiple IPs and at least one new account has started adding his private website to various articles about murders, and restoring it when reverted. He has acknowledged being the site's owner, [16] and has been asked to stop adding it, but it continues.

    • Examples of it being added:

    SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    jetsetmag.com

    Spam pages
    Sites spammed
    Spammers
    See also

    MER-C 06:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    causepimps.ca

    causepimps.ca: 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


    -- KillerChihuahua?!? 16:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    us.mt.com

    us.mt.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

    There has been a succession of spam-only accounts with the sole purpose of adding links to this site. Several of them have been blocked, including EPublicRelationsMT, Special:Contributions/Sanju_Srinivasan, and Vinod.kumar2. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4jgXQQns8A

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4jgxqqns8a: 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 LTA thinks it's funny to constantly spam this link at Modern Apizza. Would be globally blacklisted had this not been a specific YouTube video.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be globally blacklisted already. I just tried adding it to a sandbox and it denied the edit. Anomie⚔ 19:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    uncoveredinterests.com

    uncoveredinterests.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

    changing the link to hide actions is never a sign of good faith. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not quite understand the spamming policy of wikipedia. I have given a general apology to scopecreep and will desist from any further edits to do with the website on wikipedia. I appeal for the administrators not to block this site. Dhruv Sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by DhruvSharma2012 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If you aren't planning to link to the website, then why would a block be a problem? Scopecreep (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are not understanding the spamming policy of Wikipedia (or the socking policy for that matter), then you ask. Please use only your original account - and if you want to make contributions, ask for unblocking of that account - or ask questions on the talkpage of that account. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am Dhruv Sharma, the defendant; I am the writer of uncoveredinterests.com and the wikipedia blocked account "the_idiot". I have the following to say against the blacklisting of my website and blockage of my account:

    I have been a diligent contributor to Wikipedia since 2005, both financially and constructively. My only digression from norm has been the spamming of Wikipedia articles with my website in the last week. As a first time offender I seek the benefit of the doubt; I will never again misuse my rights and transgress wikipedia rules.

    Much of what I have learnt on Wikipedia and elsewhere, I collect together in economic analysis at uncoveredinterests.com. The blacklisting of my website by wikipedia could be adopted by other website and search engines. Doing untold damage to it.

    I plead with the administrators not to blacklist uncoveredinterests.com for all the above stated reasons. Let me repeat, I shall resume to be a rule-abiding contributor if the administrators reject the blacklist of uncoveredinterests.com and unblock my account the_idiot. "goodness starts with small things".

    yours truly,

    Dhruv Sharma

    Completed Proposed additions

    manuals.makeuseof.com.s3.amazonaws.com

    Spammers

    Repeated spamming of low quality e-book software manuals across multiple articles in the past 48 hours. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    lulu.com

    It is unclear to me why this site is blocked. I checked the log, and apart from the fact that it was blocked in March 2008, I could not learn anything. This website appears to be a proper respectable e-publishing site, as its wikipedia entry explains: Lulu_(company). I was trying to insert a link to a calendar published on that site by the American Institute of Physics: http://www. lulu. com/content/legacy-lulustudio-calendar/esva-2012-calendar/11198291 Erkcan (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    balamoosh.com

    Why this site is blocked is beyond me. It's a real growing online browser game site with many many users. What's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.228.64 (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It was blocked as a result of your spamming. You were warned, yet chose to continue. --Hu12 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Caesarstone.com

    Hi, I'm trying to save a new article for the company Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd., which is in the process of IPO-ing on the Nasdaq. It's not letting me save the page because there's an external link to the company's website in the infobox. Someone please unblacklist Caesarstone.com, thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've white-listed the following URL; http://www.caesarstone.com/en/Pages/default.aspx for use in that article. Please use the exact URL string, any deviation from that will not work. thanks.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what the fuss is over the regular .com URL, but will do.—Biosketch (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, several anonymous editors added spamlinks to this and other related articles, apparently as part of an SEO effort. When this happens, the spammed website ends up on this blacklist to prevent it happening again. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    squared5.com

    Needed for the article Comparison of video converters but it seems to be allowed in article MPEG Streamclip. If it is blacklisted for good reason the other link should be removed. The site looks fine to me now, but I don't know what criteria add it to the list.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010 Archive Jun 2#Video software spam indicates that it was spammed along with many other similar domains by several sockpuppts.
    Blacklisting will prevent new links from being added. It won't cause existing links to go away automatically, and my understanding is that attempts to edit articles containing such links will go through unless some change is made to the link. If you delete a link that's blacklisted, it can't be re-added, though.
     Defer to Whitelist to white-list a specific URL. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore this request. I added to whitelist requests. I also noticed that the instructions there say to add to bottom of list but when previewed after and edit, they say to add to top of list. Admin may wish to clarify this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Request withdrawn--Hu12 (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Question blacklisting of Examiner.com as spam site

    While editing the entry for Patrick McManus I found that the link to the news article in Examiner.com I was using as a reference was listed as a spam site, tho I can find no record of it here. While there may be factors that lead to this conclusion of which I am unaware (and I admit that, as a crowd-sourced source of information, like Wikipedia, it is not as reliable as traditional journalistic media outlets), I can see no reason to block reference links to articles carried in Examiner.com.Tloc (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com pays its authors per page visit. I can tell you right off it will not be unblacklisted due to that massive spam incentive. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from past abuses, Examiner.com Links;
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
     Denied--Hu12 (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First note, the entry procedures for Examiner.com have improved, though that still does not take away the spam-incentive problem.
    Regarding spam - Special:Contributions/Thetwilightexaminer this is exactly the problem, the site was spammed here - and this is certainly not the only case: IIRC there was even a delisting request where the requesting editor blatantly said the they wanted to add the link so they would earn money due to incoming traffic.
    While I agree that Examiner.com can be a good link, the spam incentive (and proven cases of this spam) will not result in delisting -  Defer to Whitelist for specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Examiner has indeed, tightened up its oversight. Examiners are graded on references, attribution, grammar, style, etc. There is even a degree of fact checking. I say this as a professional journalist who writes for several print outlets including 5 online columns on Examiner. My Examiner pieces get picked up by AP, Google News and other news sources. It is a shame that wiki is more concerned that someone might make $0.0006 for a single page view if someone cares enough to click on a link in the source material of an article, as there is some quality content on Examiner.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's less we're concerned and more that the people spamming it are concerned. They have no interest in editing Wikipedia; all they want to do is get money from clicks by Wikipedia's readers. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It items have appeared on AP and then picked up by other outlets, those seem like suitable references and would not require linking to the Examiner one. Likewise, if an Examiner piece includes references, one could pull these originals and then cite them specifically as necessary (within the limits of primary vs secondary sourcing). DMacks (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike_Searson - yes, but this blacklisting is from before that time, at that time the risk was high that editors were just writing something on this content mill (which it was at that time), and link to it from Wikipedia purely for the sake of getting the income (even if it was minor per click, it is one of the pure definitions of spamming). I know that examiner.com has tightened its rules, and the number of good stuff hence increases. And if would be properly (probably statistically) examined how the status is, we could consider de-listing of the site (probably letting XLinkBot taking over) when the benefits would significantly overcome the issue of editors being payed per-click. I am not convinced that that is the case, still much of the info is available elsewhere, and if it is not, one could question whether the info is notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia anyway, and whether it is notable enough to sponsor the writer for. For the few links that pass the bar, there is always the whitelist - which should then be a mere little hump to take. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    simijacainternet.co.cc

    Needed for the article on Simijaca as an external link. Looks like it's blacklisted because of the .co.cc domain that Gooogle made headlines blocking last summer. It is a simple Wordpress blog site with local news and information from the town's only ISP. Please allow.

     Not done per WP:EL. We already have a link to the town's municipal site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    socialfire.net.tc

    I was using this Domain an article, I noticed that it was blocked and hence I came to look at it. When i searched the Log I noticed that there was no actual entry for this domain or any domain matching the net.tc block. I was wondering whether this was a mistake, or if it was blocked but not documented or anything Connor Savage (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist. The net.tc domain is not blacklisted on Wikipedia. It is globally blacklisted. There are some individual .net.tc subdomains listed here (and they are logged, you have to search for net\.tc not net.tc), although socialfire is not among them. Alternatively,  Defer to Whitelist to propose a whitelisting of a specific link on socialfire.net.tc. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    JustJaredJr.com

    I have no idea why this website is blocked. What is the problem referenceing this link in a URL? It has many celebrity photos and news about them, so what is the problem? Quoting from its 'About' link: "Just Jared was recently named to Yahoo’s prestigious Top 10 Bloggers Roll (alongside the Huffington Post & TMZ) and was previously highlighted by Vanity Fair & InStyle as one of the world’s leading Entertainment Sites." I'd like Wiki to remove the blacklist. Thanks. Katydidit (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Related to:
    added to blacklist with:
    • \bjustjared\.buzznet\.com\b # Kanonkas # Gossip site/copyvio issues/speculation/not a reliable source used wrongly
    • \bjustjaredjr\.buzznet\.com\b # Kanonkas # Gossip site/copyvio issues/speculation/not a reliable source used wrongly
    Could you address those concerns? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    encyclopediadramatica.se

    encyclopediadramatica.se: 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

    encyclopediadramatica.ch is currently blacklisted, but they've recently moved to encyclopediadramatica.se after losing possession of the .ch domain: [29]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Spam Page?

    • I'm wikifying any pages for helping WP. but Academyrank.com, this page has a blacklisted url (http:/Academyrank.com). I don't know if this page is a spam or not. --Yodamgod (talk)
    Details;
    Spam accounts
    AdSense, datamining and spam site. Was Globaly blacklisted for abuse only two weeks after the domains creation(last Oct.). The article appears to be nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the blacklisting by, once again, using Wikipedia for promotion. Thanks for pointing it out, its been deleted. Done--Hu12 (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another IP adding a variation AcademyRank.com and plain text;
    Ranges
    --Hu12 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisted title

    I tried to run WP:REFLINKS on the Rockstar North article, but REFLINKS came back with an error stating that this article on The Register was a blacklisted title (WARNING : Blacklisted title (Grand Theft Auto in the dock over US road killing • The Register)). I'm not aware of there being any problems regarding The Register being a reliable source, so could someone point me in the right direction. Is this the correct place to enquire about the blacklist entry, and possibly get it changed. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That link is not blacklisted, either here or on Meta, or you wouldn't have been able to link to it in your report. I also note that the error message is saying the title is blacklisted, rather than the link; I'd guess the tool doesn't like the title for some reason, possibly because of the "• The Register" bit at the end. Your best bet would be to contact the author of the tool. Anomie⚔ 11:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    lawrencebeebe dot com

    This is my first encounter with the Blacklist, so forgive my cluelessness. WP generated a Spam filter notice saying that http://lawrencebeebe dot com was a spam site. I examined the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but the site in question isn't on the list. By the way, it's an art dealer's site from which I'd hoped to get info on the artist Robert Salmon. Now what? Thanks. P.S. - I couldn't save this page, either. --Seduisant (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This site is blacklisted globally.  Defer to Global blacklist Anomie⚔ 11:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instr

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins


    Quick reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion

    Automatic archiving

    Due to the format of this this page and how we archive, most archive bots cannot function here. However I just took a few minutes and wrote a custom script that should do it for us. It makes one change to convert {{LinkSummaryLive}} to {{LinkSummary}} in order to bypass any spam filter issues. (I may need to adjust it some more). There are two variables that can be configured: stale conversations, and ones tagged with templates indicating defer/done/not done ect. Right now my thoughts would be to set stale conversations to 30 days, and those tagged to 15. Thoughts? ΔT The only constant 05:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To keep this page clear, I'd like to see automated archiving - though I also like the thing we do on the whitelist: we have the open requests, which get either granted or denied, they then get moved to an appropriate section (IMHO, that could be after 24 hours), and later archived (which would be nice after say, 1-2 weeks, bit depending on size). At least they are then quick out of the 'open' area, which makes it easier to focus on what needs 'quick' attention, while still having the posts handy for some time if the problem expands to other areas, or if there are quick de-listing requests.
    I would also suggest that both 'live' links get converted (and the {{LinkSummaryLive}} converted to {{LinkSummary}}) when moving the requests.
    All in all, yes, please! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to create the the new sections I can tweak the code. I would request that each "section" retain the primary '=' section level, so that we are not mixing section levels, but it would be trivial to adjust my archive code. Just let me know the time periods, and I could have the code operational in less than 24 hours, and then would go ahead with the BRFA process. ΔT The only constant 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To the original question ... what is the bot name? Has it already been approved, or is it pending approval? For time duration, I think we can start it with 45 days stale, and tighten it up later if needed. I would prefer to have longer than needed as the starting point and adjust down, rather than too short and adjusting up. My only other concern is ensuring there's an easy to access emergency off switch (possibly linked from the header for this page). --- Barek (talk) - 18:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not filed for approval yet, I wanted to flush the idea out, find issues, get those addressed, before ever going to the BRFA process. As for the shutoff, that should be trivial, just a matter of configuring a wiki page. ΔT The only constant 18:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Before proceeding any further, you may want to read Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links, which is proposing some changes to where these requests are submitted, as well as how the requests on the page are structured. --- Barek (talk) - 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible malware

    There's a question at RSN about a possible malware site. Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Please_check_the_source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ran the url through a few malware/threat detectors, seems its ok.
    Here are a few scanner tools that could be usefull.
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    what's wrong with google news?

    The filter blocked http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Marcie+Alberts&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CDYQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.newsbank.com%2Fg%2FGooglePM%2FAK%2Flib00100%2C0EB6BF8A6E4A784A.html&ei=DPBcT6mJHKrc0QH0-PijDw&usg=AFQjCNG2ILAqFjY6tlu-flqQpc8nvOatfw&sig2=1R9Kk4z4UINSZtaInIEyqQ I do not know how to tell whether it's on this of the global blacklist, as I cannot find it or any part of it on either . DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Google fiddles around with the URL so that it can track you. It also can (and I believe, has) be used to circumvent the blacklist. Is this what you are looking for? MER-C 02:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the entry on the global blacklist is \bgoogle\..*?/url\?. In general with these Google redirector links, just follow the link in your browser and then copy the url you were redirected to. Anomie⚔ 19:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never had any issue with using and posting these in places where they're needed; however I just tried updating one on my user page (replacing an already existing one) and it says it triggered the blacklist. However, the same link I was trying to post was added to WT:VG/S not minutes ago. What gives?
    Please ask this on the whitelist for the specific google custom search. A proper programming of a custom search engine enables a true spammer to make it find the only result that they need (and that was done by some spammers), turning it into what is basically a redirect site. Moreover, there is hardly ever any use for search engines in main space anyway. Specific custom search engines can be whitelisted for specific targets, hence the  Defer to Whitelist.
    Note: the LinkSummary template takes only the domain (without the http://, and without the www. or www3. prefix, and without everything after the first '/' or '?'). In that case it does not give a live link, but only links regarding the domain and other tracking options. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For as far as I can see, all cse engines are blacklisted except for 2 or 3 specific ones which are whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh, there are on en.wikipedia 11 /cse/ links whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Copying the url and pasting to get to the sites from this list seems difficult, because I don't understand how all the \babcd format works. It would be a lot easier if there could be hyperlinks next to each one, just to fill up that empty space at the right side in this article. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is an interface page in the MediaWiki namespace written in regex for administration of the MediaWiki software, on which Wikipedia runs. Hyper-linking to those sites has been blocked. Some sites contained therein were added due to hosting trojans and other harmful malware. Accessing them is not advisable.-Hu12 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, some regexes are more generic, so do not fit a specific url but more a set of urls, or another pattern. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, I thought unwanted sites are blacklisted elsewhere, and that this was a lesser blacklist that doesn't prevent the addition of a link but merely reverts links posted by advertisers... do they really contain trojans and harmful malware, because some websites on the total blacklist aren't even that bad. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    About the blacklist. --Hu12 (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What you you mean? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a blacklist, it prevents saving. Are you sure you are not confusing this list with User:XLinkBot/RevertList - which are external links which get reverted? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! you're right. I arrived at this page from XLinkBot's talk page or something, that was totally what I was actually looking for. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    FirstPersonShooters.net

    has never been a spam site, or ever been posted as spam anywhere on the internet or meatspace. it is entirely relevant everywhere it has been posted. it was in good standing as a relevant link on the appropriate page here for years. i'm using wikipedia's own definition of spam btw. if you look at it from a white-list perspective there is no reason it should ever have been blacklisted in the first place. there's nothing about the site or any links ever appearing on wikipedia which were not relevant, in context, and utterly helpful. if that's not enough then the problem is with your priorities for inclusion/exclusion, not the site itself. there is nothing commercial, malicious, intrusive, or any other mal-thing anywhere on the site. also, the edit summary below this edit box suggests that the list should include hyperlinks to each site, but such hyperlinks are specifically disallowed for things relevant to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.237.118 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can see, not blacklisted here, but blacklisted on gl and ar.wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisted as \bfirstpersonshooters\.(?:net|org), added in 2007. See also a recently denied delist request. Apparently it has been spammed somewhere on the Internet, namely here in 2007. Anomie⚔ 11:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Traditio-ru.org

    I would like to know the reason behind the block of this site by user Saint Johann. I don't see anything wrong with the site besides the fact that its written in foreign language! Your thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Traditio-ru.org is just new URL of Traditio.ru, russian marginal attack-site (see russian ArbCom: "About the flouting by users of the project "Traditio" of honor and dignity of wikipedians" is just one example of Traditio.ru-related arbitrations). This site was used for coordination of wikipedian votings, insults of Wikipedia and wikipedians, etc. Saint Johann (ru) 16:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, as you said, "it was used", but is it still? If so, show me that, and I will more likely stop asking those questions. Plus, it happened on the Russian Wikipedia not English, can't one site of Wikipedia block it while the other stay intacked? Like, Traditio didn't say any comments about Enlish Wikipedians, even though they probably were in the know of Russian Wikipedians existence on other Wikipedian links. Another thing to mention, I am not voting for any ArbCom on any of those sites.--Mishae (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The site is blacklisted globally, not on en.wikipedia. If this site has been abused on multiple wikis, then that may very well result in it being blacklisted globally, so that it can not be abused further. You can request whitelisting for this site on this wiki, if you so wish.  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    fort-kochi.com

    When I wanted to set a link to fort-cochi.com at Fort Kochi, I was told that this site is blacklisted. But, it is not on the blacklist. Besides, it is a private non-commercial website with many interesting information for tourists. Dhanyavaada (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The global blacklist entry for kochi.com is hitting it. Your best bet would be to ask for your link to be whitelisted. Anomie⚔ 11:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You could also ask to adapt the too wide rule on meta,  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hallettestoneoin Seazoria Dragons

    Please remove these url's from the blacklist so that I may utilize them in my pages. www.seazoria.com/ seazoria.hubpages.com/ www.scribd.com/doc/38025191/Hallettestoneion-Seazoria-Dragons-Discovered-and-Confirmed-dated-at-467-to-484-myo These pages are valid research of the Hallettestoneion Seazoria Dragons, I am unsure as to why they were blacklisted in the first place but I can assure you that the research and information contained in these pages is authentic. Yes, I am new to the wikipedia but that should not prevent me from requesting help or publishing pages here, I hope that someone will assist me in this process.. Thank You 05:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)JenEda — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenEda (talk • contribs)

    hubpages.com is blacklisted here on en.wikipedia, you can normally link to the others. Please consider whether the hubpages.com-page needs whitelisting. Also, please read WP:OWN. For hubpages:  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank You Dirk. All the Seazoria pages belong to my partner, Mike Hallett. Do I need to refile these page on the whitelist? JenEda (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)JenEda[reply]

    You're welcome. No, just the hubpages.com, the others can be used at the moment. You may want to have a look at our conflict of interest guideline, by the way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Awesome! I will help Mike submit the proper links then. Thank you for the COI info as well. Enjoy your Day JenEda (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Jen[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=488141284"