Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist

Why is this blacklisted?

Why is google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2sfOXufHTAhUD6mMKHYj_BQQQFggpMAA&url=http://natural-history.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/mnch/Erlandson_and_Braje_2008.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHHMbx8zVdHvrJMuFpCYf9AYfeNJQ&sig2=dNH7JQ9VmoRayVY3WFyD6g triggering as a blacklisted link? VQuakr (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Because when you click the link you write here, you tell google that you are interested in this link. So if a spammer would replace 'www.mycompany.com' with 'google.com/url?url=http://www.mycompany.com', anyone following that link from Wikipedia would tell google that they are interested in the contents of mycompany.com, increasing the ranking of mycompany.com at google. That is the exact essence of SEO (Search Engine Optimization). Since there is absolutely no use in using thát link instead of (in your case) http://natural-history.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/mnch/Erlandson_and_Braje_2008.pdf (the document that you actually want to link, the redirecting, google-rank-increasing link has been blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't black list

MithileshRazz245 (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Where is the blacklist?

No link to it that I could see. deisenbe (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: It is linked in the second sentence: MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. WP:SBL also leads you there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Help!

Why is change.org blacklisted? 216.145.88.103 (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Because it is abused, and generally we are not specifically interested in any collection of names signing a petition. The subject matter can be discussed without a link to a collection fof names. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

What to do when archiving a page which contains a blacklisted link?

I just archived Talk:U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and ran into an issue when saving the new archive. The talk page had a blacklisted link and I was therefore unable to save the new page. I got around that by placing 'nowiki' on the link, but I'm wondering if there are any guidelines as to whether the offending link should just be removed or some other solution. (posting on Help talk:Archiving a talk page as well) Hydromania (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nowiki is fine, but posting multiple copies of the same message to different talk pages is not. Graham87 15:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Hydromania (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

GBooks

Any reason why a Google Books link should suddenly be blacklisted? Is it somehow connected with EU Article 13 proposals? Surely not? The url format is identical to the thousands of GBooks urls I have inserted in the last decade or more. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, https://books.google.com/books?id=ngCqCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA79 - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Sitush: trying: https://books.google.com/books?id=1324. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Sitush: It seems to have to do with the 'id=ngCqCQAAQBAJ' part. Curious case. @Billinghurst: can you throw this link at coibot in IRC to see which rules is the culprit here? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I am wondering whether the source has been blocked. It looks like a fairly dodgy source to me. - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Repinging due to typo above - @Billinghurst: - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra: it is one of yours special:diff/prev/769078025 and seems to be discussed by the community here, and if I read it correctly it was due to people suborning copyrighted books at GBooks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: spam from a publisher (and maybe we should revisit that, I doubt that they stopped publishing when they found their first domains blacklisted on en.wikipedia (if they even noticed)). @Ugog Nizdast, Someguy1221, Utcursch, and SpacemanSpiff: who participated in the discussions regarding the first set. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Spiffy isn't active, so we're not going to get a response from them. I do strongly suspect that the specific source isn't reliable - I was just trying to add a courtesy link so that I could then open a discussion about it. Whether that means other sources from the same publisher are problematic is not something I can comment on. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: I'm just going to pull the source out of the article. I've read the thread that billingshurst and note that it has been lumped with the Gyan stuff, for which see User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. As far as I am concerned, I've got no issue with retaining the filter on that basis because this sort of thing does keep reappearing. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: if there is regular misuse we should probably prohibit additions of such material. Actually an editfilter set to warn-and-prohibit is likely a better solution for these. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Blacklist issue with an archive link

Running into an issue where an archived page I want to link to points to a domain that is now a spam site, but was not when the article was created. At the time of creation it was the page of The RPG Exaiminer, housed at exaiminer.com, which now just redirects to some kind of shopping/advertising spam site. The link I'm trying to use, though, is http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Fx-6911-RPG-Examiner%7Ey2009m7d24-Roleplaying-games-101-What-is-an-ENnie&date=2009-07-26. Which is not associated with that in any way. Is there anything I can do? Or is it effectively a verboten link because of the domain's current use? ―Vancian | 💬📜  22:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)