Talk:Spam blacklist

Shortcut:
WM:SPAM

The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist. There is also a more aggressive way to block spamming through direct use of $wgSpamRegex. Only developers can make changes to $wgSpamRegex, and its use is to be avoided whenever possible.

For more information on what the spam blacklist is for, and the processes used here, please see Spam blacklist/About.

Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, or Troubleshooting and problems, read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In addition to that, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. Other discussions related to this last, but that are not a problem with a particular link please see, Spam blacklist policy discussion.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

Information: List of all projects; Overviews; Reports; Wikimedia Embassy; Project portals; Country portals
Tools: Spam blacklist; Title blacklist; Email blacklist; Rename blacklist; Closure of wikis; Interwiki map
Requests: Permissions; Bot flags; New languages; New projects; Username changes; Translations; Speedy deletions

[edit]

snippet for logging: {{/request|664337#section_name}}

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

Worthy of note: en:Wikipedia:Grief

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 18 years ago32 comments8 people in discussion

This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived.

.metacafe.com

This site is unsafe and tries to install WinFixer spyware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.112.91.123 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Hum - may well be spammy, Eagle's tool is not working at present, but googleing it produces nothing alarming - more info? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

More ifrance.com subdomains

Spammed the sonikmatter wiki. The number to the right indicates the specific numbers of instances. This was taken from a single page. Another Mediawiki installation that is affected here

alishca-st\.ifrance\.com 5
atrayah\.ifrance\.com 12
call-shotgun\.ifrance\.com 12
cocopuff66\.ifrance\.com 10
dejablu503\.ifrance\.com 10
flawedamythyst\.ifrance\.com 7
gabe95\.ifrance\.com 7
gajar\.ifrance\.com 9
horcrionebay\.ifrance\.com 8
joshuaw-wise\.ifrance\.com 11
krychan\.ifrance\.com 6
lekusya\.ifrance\.com 13
lightmyfire0214\.ifrance\.com 12
mfirishka\.ifrance\.com 13
nokros\.ifrance\.com 15
sm4\.ifrance\.com 13
smegmacheez\.ifrance\.com 11
squoi-oop\.ifrance\.com 9
trumanburb\.ifrance\.com 8
zeakk\.ifrance\.com 9

The Puppeteer 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It does seem that folk think this is really intended for Foundation sites (while sympathetic) so any links on them would assist a decision? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Herby, for some history, please see this archived article and also here for similar instances. As I mentioned earlier, there was little problem with adding widespread spam links to the blacklist in the past as long as it didn't affect foundation sites. If the policy has changed, please let me know and we'll start seeking alternatives to dealing with the spam at our wiki.

I'm not really sure how to search through foundation sites for similar spam links to what we are experiencing. Our main search tool for spam has been to use google, with some of the links and Mediawiki. Normally, the spam that we see on our wiki turns up thousands of Mediawiki wiki's when you do such a search. I normally post a few example sites to demonstrate that it is widespread spam. If we don't find such links, we don't post it to the blacklist, and just do the reverts on our site, until the spam stops.

The Puppeteer 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the archive links & from that I agree with you - I'll get to it tomorrow I hope - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

more babyhold.com-related spam

The following discussion is closed.

babyhold.com was blacklisted on meta in July for cross-wiki spamming. In the process of investigating a request to remove it from the blacklist, I found that related domains had also been spammed; these should also be blacklisted on meta:

User accounts links to babyhold.com or one of the affiliated domains:

Reference:

Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/07#www.babyhold.com
Talk:Spam blacklist#babyhold.com (permanent link)
- Removal request

Please blacklist:

telavivguide.net
moolamusic.co.il
porto-guide.com

Google AdSense IDs:

2382028832344851
7017472673405738

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! For the record here, this is the en.wikipedia record:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#babyhold.com-related spam on Wikipedia and Wiktionary (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.wmis.com.cn

The following discussion is closed.

be-x-old:.dm aed spam again. Please include wmis.com.cn into blacklist. --EugeneZelenko 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Using Eagle's tool I get nothing on the main 57 wikis it checks Eugene - is this a cross wiki one or would your local blacklist be appropriate - let me know if I can help - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If other wikis doesn't have such problems (.dm aed, .dm aid articles are persisting spam pattern on be-x-old Wikipedia), local blacklist will be fine. But please tell how to set up local one, I never did such thing in the past. --EugeneZelenko 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You will find you have a page MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist on your wiki (sysops only to edit). # means anything else on the line will be ignored so you can make a note of why or anything you want. You need to put in there \bwmis\.com\.cn\b - that will match exactly the domain you wish to block and nothing else. Feel free to post me a link for me to look at when you've done it (here or Commons) and I'll check it for you Eugene. It is worth using the blacklist locally for issues that only affect your wiki but I'll happily held, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's works!!! Thank you for help! --EugeneZelenko 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Happy to help --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

mysundial.2go4.de

Another redirection to the blacklisted link mysundial.ca . See: Talk:Spam_blacklist#mts.net.2F.7Esabanski.2Fsundial_.28avoiding_blacklisted_link_mysundial.ca.29

(At least 8 of the ca 32 Sundial articles cross wiki are protected now, and most of the spamming in the others got reverted by the local communities the last time, it has become really hard to get the links to stick.)

I don't know anything about regex, but will it be possible to blacklist:

mysundial
2go4.de
2-www.de

I don't know what other shortulrls motigo.com can provide, sorry. If left to me we will just sit here and wait to have this sundial enthusiast give them to us, one by one... Maybe someone more knowledged about shorturls can have a look at it?

Cross-wiki spam:

IP spamming the link:
206.45.117.102

Sample edits:

fa
id
fr
es
it
ja
pt

--Jorunn 08:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done the main one, would like to hear others advice before doing the others Jorunn as I think they could be a bit wide ranging. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

rawartint.com and girafa.com spam

The following discussion is closed.

Domains:

girafa.com
rawartint.com

Accounts:

Spam articles:

Disputatious discussions

Misbehaviour:

vandalism

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#rawartint.com and girafa.com spam on Wikipedia (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done and thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

palavas.blog4ever.com/ "Ensemble passionnément pour Palavas"

Through dynamic IPs, this political blog about French town of Palavas-les-Flots has been trying to impose it in fr.wikipedia article (history of article Palavas-les-Flots) and even a category ([1]), and others wikipedias (en., de., it. inside the article).

Furthermore, every IPs has never do a thing to improve, complete the articles. Not a thing.

Thank to a google search, I discover that the owner of this blog, Luc Albherne, put his blog's link on many blog's commentary and forums he found.

Please, put the link http://palavas.blog4ever.com/ on the black list. Sebjarod 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discovery : first appearance of the link on fr. (see) : the IP tries to impose the picture of the blog's owner on the history part of the article. Sebjarod 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

boxing-memorabilia.com

The following discussion is closed.

These boxing links were widely cross-wiki spammed. I noticed the boxing spam a while back when I was investigating another big, unrelated spam operation ( languedoc-france.info) that used the same shared corporate IP (cross-wiki edit history for 168.224.1.14). I noticed it was cross-wiki, but I was so pre-occupied with the langue-doc.info cleanup I forgot about this one.

The same boxing spammer also added links to ezinearticles.com pages with his links on them. (Ezinearticles.com is already blacklisted at meta).

Sample boxing spam edits:

Linksearches:

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#boxing-memorabilia.com and famousmuslims.com (permanent link)

I don't know anything about the famousmuslims.com domain that's also included in the report, so I'm just listing the boxing stuff here for now. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The website was used also as a legitimate source for an article on it.wiki... --Jollyroger 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it is legitimate then the best answer is to seek a local whitelisting for the site, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

redtopbg.com, a gemisimo.com-related site

The following discussion is closed.

AboutUs.org is a commercial wiki the runs on the same Media-Wiki software the Wikimedia Foundation uses. It provides a directory of web sites -- sort of like DMOZ on steroids. Compare the AboutUs.org contributions of 83.130.44.203 (adding redtopbg.com to articles for the site's competitors) to that IP's contributions here on meta (protesting gemisimo.com's addition to the spam blacklist). You can also see that another AboutUs editor edits both the Gemisimo and Retopbg listings.

iil.be

URL redirection site similar to tinyurl.com courtesy of my favorite watchlisted article.^[2]

Google Adsense ID: 9699183491858792
--A. B. ^(talk) 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done (request fixed to 1tmdotde)--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching this. I clicked on the link, looked at the site then reported the URL here. I did not notice that 1tm.de redirects to iil.be.

So please also blacklist:

iil.be.

Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done (will log it later) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

carnivalservice.com

Cross-wiki spam.

IPs adding the link, all veloxzone.com.br:

Sample edits:

als
ast 9 Sept. 2006, ast 13 Nov. 2006, ast 3 Sept. 2007
bar
bg
bs
da
de
el
en
eo 14 Aug. 2006, eo 9 Sept. 2006, eo 3 Sept. 2007

--Jorunn 06:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 11:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 18 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion

This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements.

bloopdiary.com

I own this website, and it has been banned because of associated spam. However, I do not endorse the spam, and nor the voluntary staff at the site. If you search bloopdiary on Google, you will come across forum spam that was created by abusive bots. I don't feel this is a fair reason to ban the site, given that many members would like to be able to read the wikipedia page and adjust it to keep in touch and updated about site development.

I propose that it be removed from the list.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.111.71 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the links referenced previously have disappeared; see Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/12#bloopdiary.com. I suggest asking Naconkantari and/or MaxSem about this domain.

There are also questions for the site-owner:

Who would add these links?
Why should Wikipedia want them?
Do these links meet the requirements of our Reliable Sources Guideline?
Do these links meet the requirements of our External Links Guideline?

--A. B. ^(talk) 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Related site:

www.lowestoftonline.com

See:

--A. B. ^(talk) 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll look into this one --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

My comments: this site was used by spambots. Even if there are positive answers to all four questions by A.B., we must be 1000% sure before removing this site from blacklist. MaxSem 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply.

Who would add these links?

Everybody. There are several members from the site that have asked about a wikipedia page, because there's a lot that goes on. Last year we successfully helped the police put a paedophile behind bars. We have developed a privacy system to help protect people from stalkers.

Why should Wikipedia want them?

Some of the information about the privacy system would be helpful to others when looking for standards in privacy on sites such as this. Many of our members also use Wikipedia, and would like to see a page relevant to the site.

Do these links meet the requirements of our Reliable Sources Guideline?

I believe so, there are press releases related to police cases that I'd like to write about now that I'm legally able to do so. We don't want to write a self-serving page about the greatness and righteousness of our website, we just want to share what we have discovered since the site is online and write about the developments in privacy protection that have come about. I'm confident there's lots of information that would be insightful to others.

Do these links meet the requirements of our External Links Guideline?

The page would link to the site's domain, and to the press releases I have already spoken of. So I believe that the links would meet the requirements of your external links guideline.

The spam bots that abused the site have not been banned, but rather the system secured with numeric image verification and a system protection policy that prevents features, such as file hosting, being abused. We have had no problems with spam since.

212.159.111.71 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Personally I'm unconvinced by your "why we would want the links" and, for me, that has to be a key. If they are not wanted then no other argument is relevant. Equally personally I'm be reluctant to remove this while your ip (attached to the site) remains blacklisted on internet lists --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, the link was banned because of spam bots. My IP address is a static IP address from home, and I'd be interested in knowing where it's blacklisted. We've had the same IP for a good 5 years, and it's not just me that uses it.

I find your tone a little patronising. Regardless of your personal opinion, I thought that Wikipedia was read by many people on the web, and some of those people may actually find the information provided useful. I don't think it's fair to speak on behalf of all of them. As for the links being unwanted, the only reason to date for them being unwanted is because the spam bots abused the website (to my knowledge at least). And this has since been resolved. I feel it'd only be fair to give the wikipedia community a chance to see the content provided and let them decide for themselves.

212.159.111.71 11:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I regret the fact that you find my tone patronising as it is not intended however I will cease to comment on this thread after this to avoid further annoyance (unless it requires closing).

My view is that links that are continually added and removed means that the community have declared them "unwanted" and that is why a request is brought here.

As to blacklisting this will provide you the freely available information. I am sure you will argue that there are only two entries however the presence of any entries is very relevant --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe this IP address was blacklisted because of an open SMTP relay that we were experimenting with, which has since been closed. I understand its relevance, but it was only blocked because of an honest mistake this end - and this isn't the server's IP address, it is my own!

I believe if you look further into the matter, you'll find that the server isn't doing anything illegal, and the links themselves haven't been up long enough for the community to even consider whether or not they should be on Wikipedia, because they were removed due to spam bot abuse (which wasn't initiated by the domain, but rather an unknown third party). Also, if BloopDiary is to be blacklisted, then I hope there'd be fair treatment to a site which is similar, namely OpenDiary. I don't understand why there'd be a whole page dedicated to one website (which actually holds no useful information whatsoever about the site or anything that it does) and yet we would be denied a page with small relevance to the website itself, but with much more relevance to the work involving privacy protection and protection from predators.

212.159.111.71 15:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

turkishweekly.net turkudostlari.net bturkish.at

I came here initially for the t issue above, which is solved now (it was blocking arama.hurriyet.com.tr). So, I should admit that I am not going to use these sites now. I hope that does not affect their removals.

turkishweekly.net (usakgundem.com as well): a news journal (I don't know why it was ever blacklisted). It was first blacklisted by Dbl2010 (I think without a discussion), then he removed it when someone objected [3], and then he 'redid it with more detail' [4], which was blacklisting the Turkish version of the site. Weird. These were done after the discussions about blacklisting the Turkish chat sites. I agree they should be blacklisted but their existence does not imply blacklisting news journal websites. I think this should be removed from the blacklist
turkudostlari.net: This website hosts among others a quite big and good archive of lyrics of "türkü"s (Turkish folk songs) with additional info about them (their origins, their 'tales', sourced). They also host non-copyrighted mp3's of some songs of contemporary musicians. The website was blacklisted on February 1st, b/c some guy added link to Edirne folk songs to Edirne on multiple wikis simultaneously.[5] I think it is time to remove the website from the blacklist. We can use it on many Turkish folk music related articles.

bturkish.at: Apparently, this website does not exist [6]. There might be a spelling error.

Denizz 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the subject of "bturkish" this is actually part of the regex used so the site blacklisted is turkish.at --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

biblewalks.com

The following discussion is closed.

The linkwww.biblewalks.com/info/JesusFootsteps.html is directly relevant to the Jesus article. I have added it back in twice? myself over the last few months. It does not contain any spam, and represents the traditional Christian view. Please remove from blacklist. 202.154.149.16 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The very "adding it back" is one of the reasons it gets added to such a list. It seems that the community is not as in favour of this link as you are. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was discussed briefly on the Jesus talk page a few months ago. There are only 1 or 2 editors who removed it, and 1 or 2 in favour of keeping it. I'll see if I can find and post a link. 222.155.79.242 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Prior discussions:

Multiple prior spam warnings from multiple editors:

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The links provided by A.B. (thanks) suggest that it is a noticeably bigger problem than you are attempting to portray in your "only 1 or 2 editors who removed it, and 1 or 2 in favour of keeping it". I think it likely this will close as decline based on this --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

No further comments so closed as Declined --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

blog.myspace.com

The following discussion is closed.

I'd like to add a link directly relevant to the Fabio Wunderbar page, which contains a link begining with blog.myspace.com. Please consider removing spam block for this particular link, as the article is being considered for deletion without due to its lack of citing and references which I am trying to provide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.158.152.205 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 Aug 2007 (UTC)

In practice you will need to request local whitelisting for this. It is unlikely that this will be removed from the Meta blacklist.

Declined thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

MYSPACE blogs are not spam. Some asshole's gonna delete the page on Albert Hammond Jr's new album if i can't add the link to his myspace blog. so please unblock it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.73.184.201 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 30 Aug 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment above - you will need to get local Wiki whitelisting --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

babyhold.com

The following discussion is closed.

I represent the site babyhold.com. I would like to ask that babyhold.com be removed from the Spam list. Links to our site were added in relevant articles as additional resources for interested readers.

Articles include:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_show#References - Causes of Vaginal Bleeding During Pregnancy links to an educational article that serves as an informative reference for pregnant women. Bleeding during pregnancy is an important issue that women need to be aware of.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_childbirth#External_links - Healthy Positions for Active Natural Labor is an educational article describing various birth positions that have been helpful to women to shorten and ease labor.

These articles do not sell a product and serve as educational tools on relevant subjects. Links were also added to given name pages to provide readers with information on the meaning of given names.

The article on Coverdell accounts babyhold.com/The_pregnancy_book/Financial_Planning/Coverdell_Accounts_-_An_Option_for_Young_Parents/ provides an alternative information source for parents interested in early college savings. It is an article that is fits along with the other External Links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverdell_Education_Savings_Account . The article provides an alternative view and does not sell the accounts.

Thank you for your time and assistance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babyhold Rep (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 Aug 2007 (UTC)

Links were placed on 5 or 6 Foundation wikis and so the site would not be removed from this global blacklist. Should you wish to place something on an article on Wikipedia for example you should seek whitelisting on there. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's fortuitous that Babyhold Rep brought this up, since in investigating this further, I found that the extent of spam activity and sockpuppetry was much broader than initially reported.

User accounts:

References:

Other domains previously spammed and not already blacklisted:

telavivguide.net
moolamusic.co.il
porto-guide.com

Related domains:

market-er.com

Google AdSense IDs:

2382028832344851
7017472673405738

I will request blacklisting of the other spammed links. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Given the additional evidence (thanks A. B.) I have no hesitation Declined --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

100 Songs

I'd like http://www.squidoo.com/100songs/ removed from the blacklist, please. The link is for the "Won't Get Fooled Again" wikipedia page as just another example of the acclaim Roger Daltrey's scream has gotten over the years. Thanks for the help. 74.77.208.52 16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You really need to take a request like that to your local (en wp) whitelist so that the specific page can be put in for that project only - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

5min.com

We would like to ask for a removal of the url 5min.com from the spam blacklist section. 5min.com is a user generated instructional video site. our vision is to create a videopedia where everyone can upload a video and share their knowledge with others. We really care about user generated instructional content . As part of our vision, we want to give the knowledge communities access to our videos and we are already cooperating with wikihow.com, a very big "how to" wiki site. We don't really understand why we were added to the spam blacklist in the first place and we would love to be noticed if any of our members did something not according to the wiki rules.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.45.223 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 2 Sep 2007 (UTC)

The blacklist request is here. The use of a number of usernames and IP addresses to place links and ignoring warnings is not the best way to get the community "onside" I think although I realise the IPs involved are not the one you placed this request from --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might ask "Daverose31" about the spam-- in addition to spamming these links to Wikipedia, he's apparently joined a number of other sites to add 5min.com links. He looks very busy.

Various Wikipedia editors issued numerous requests and warnings as the links were added but they were apparently shrugged off.^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]}

As for the IP address above, both the IPs adding these links as well as the IP making the request above all originate in Israel.^[17][18][19] --A. B. ^(talk) 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Personally I'd take some convincing to remove this per A. B.'s evidence --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

5min is a 4 month old website. When we first started out, we hired a marketing company that did more harm than good by marketing our website in an unauthentic way. The marketing company, as well as 5min, is located in Israel. This is probably the source of the spam actions. Obviously 5min's vision doesn't include adding links indiscriminately. We believe that we can enrich many wikis with our video content and we get great feedback from leadin blogs on the web including techcruch who wrote about us the fourth time two days ago. We will do whatever it takes to get off the spammers list because we see our selfs as future partners with many wikis out there.

Let us know what we can do.

nefac.net

A previous request that this site be removed from the list was declined on the basis that the site had been involved in "quite an amount of cross wiki spamming". This is not the case - it was involved in one incident of inappropriate cross-wiki posting. This site is a significant and reputable anarchist resource, and has not been involved in any systematic spamming problems. It should be removed from the blacklist. 68.124.71.180 20:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment for now - if someone places links on 7 wikis I'd probably take the view it was spamming & it seems "systematic" in my view. I'll happily look at others comments, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dreamcrowd.com

This is the first formal request for the site dreamcrowd.com to be removed from the spam list. The site was listed on a few sections related to dream analysis and dream interpretation, but later deemed as spam. The owners of Dreamcrowd.com have a strict policy not to add any of our own stuff on Wikipedia. Please remove this site from the Wikipedia spam list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christopher winters (talk • contribs) 06:40, 5 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Why blcok Encyclopedia Dramatica? It's very funny!

Encyclopedia Dramatica is very funny and I don't think anyone would take it serious. Come on people, don't be so squeamish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.5.50.44 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 5 Sep 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, why replace someone's user page with "Fuck you in the ass"? (See en:User talk:154.5.50.44 and en:Special:Contributions/154.5.50.44). --A. B. ^(talk) 11:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments15 people in discussion

This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).

Blacklisting "http:// t"?

The filter has just blacklisted any link starting with "http:// t". Please fix. (I added a space between the // and t to be able to save this post. The filter is also forbidding the possibility to report about incorrect blacklisted links, sigh.) --62.78.179.116 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yea same problem as this, any link starting with t is getting zapped. 24.141.169.255 18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Same here. This needs to be removed from the blacklist. I just tried editing the trend micro article to replace the gif logo with an svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trend_Micro.svg, but it won't let me. It said that the error was from http://quote.t and http://www.t, but now it seems to be fixed! :) Althepal 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Same here - can't edit a page with perfectly legit. links. 91.125.19.205 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is what caused my problem w/ perseus.tufts.edu reported above. So apparently any domain name starting with t is screwed, even if not after http:// 149.106.224.2 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also got caught with this problem... the odd thing is, I can't find any such links on the page I'm trying to save, w:User:Disavian. Disavian 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

should "http://www." then the letter "t" after the dot be on the blacklist or is this a mistake? i cant type it exactly because its filtered!! am i not getting all the info for what spam link was blocked?? i'm slightly confused because i didnt add an links. only re-arranged the Human trafficking in Angeles City article. 124.217.57.249 18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be fixed now. Disavian 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fixed

It looks like it's fixed. Althepal 18:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Somehow, it seems to have been caused by this edit. It was fixed by that user reverting their change. 88.104.180.121 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (en:User:Dreaded Walrus)Reply

It hasn't been fixed though. I have a problem in Thai Wikipedia (htt p://t h.wikipedia.org). I'm using this functions,

[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=purge}} ปรับปรุงล่าสุด]

then the spam filter activated. I'm wondering if anyone can check out at th:Template:ประกาศ. Thanks. --Manop 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it's fixed now. --Manop 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I seem to hazily remember something like this happening a month or two ago due to a Mediawiki software glitch, not an admin error. I think all domains starting with some other letter were briefly blocked. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The filter has just blacklisted any link starting with "http:// sjksiongboon.freewebpage.org". Please fix. (I added a space between the // and t to be able to save this post. The filter is also forbidding the possibility to report about incorrect blacklisted links, sigh.) 124.13.29.56 14:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The "freewebpage" bit is the issue - it is blacklisted --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some HTML that is apparently blacklisted

This part:

biresybj:nhgb;urvtug:

Of the references list element below is blocked because of the spam blacklist.

<qvi fglyr="biresybj:nhgb;urvtug:200ck;jvqgu:100%;">

It should not be blocked. I had to ROT13 encode the above to make it pass the spam blacklist here. A PHP script will easily decode it, but I use leetkey.Krator 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you prove the reason why it should not be blocked? Thanks! --Aphaia 07:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Though I find it self evident, the blocked item is some HTML code that will enable an element to have a fixed size, and display a scroll bar once its contents exceed that size. This is useful for reference lists as they appear on Wikipedia, e.g. in w:Characters of StarCraft. Using overflow:scroll has a nasty horizontal bar as well that is unneeded, and the auto option should be possible. Krator 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've run into the issue with the display tag causing the blacklist to become active; I believe I got around it by just shifting the CSS declarations around. EVula // talk // 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Local blacklisting vs. global blacklisting?

Now that there is a local blacklisting capability, the question arises as to when to blacklist locally and when to blacklist here.

My personal opinion is that Meta should remain the primary venue for blacklisting. It's hard to predict who's going to spam more than one Wikipedia. While we now have a tool to find a given spam domain on the 57 largest Wikipedias, it remains problematic to find it on the 200 smaller Wikipedias or the other 450 to 500 Wikimedia projects (Wikiquote, Wikisource, etc.) There's value to all these other projects in listing stuff here.

I think the local blacklist option is good when one project wants a domain blacklisted and another project wants to use it. This happens occasionally when a given spammer makes himself intolerable on one project while the link is being used appropriately on other projects.

What do others think about this? --A. B. ^(talk) 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Generally speaking, I agree with you. I don't have a big problem with local blacklisting on a particular project as a way to immediately interrupt a spammer in progress, but standard procedure should probably be to follow that action up with a request for meta blacklisting.--Isotope23 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a crosswiki admin if I see spam pages created or bunches of links placed I immediately add them to local blacklists that I can access. It's quicker and easier than coming here (where I have not always been helpfully received) and there is at least one or two sites that I've blacklisted that have apparently valid links on en wp for example - just my 0.02 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

See Spam blacklist/About and use the block with the smallest possible range. Now local blacklists are available it's not worth the work of blocking here and potentially causing side-effects in hundreds of wikis until there is an established pattern of cross-wiki spamming. Perhaps automatic rejection until at least five wikis have been spammed. And not automatic acceptance after five, just eligibility. Jamesday 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting idea - how would you know a site was blocked by five wikis say? They do not tend to be well used (local blacklists) - I'm about the only one who adds to the 4 I have access to. The principle is fine - the practice? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Metric criteria are nice I think. I don't think however we need to say "blocked from five or more wikis". I think that it is just okay "five or more wikis were spammed". Currently, my personal criteria is very low though - spamming to two or more wikis regardless languages (both sets of i. enwiki and enwiktionary and ii. enwiki and dewiki are enough for me, I mean). --Aphaia 10:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am with AB on this: we should use meta as both the main blocking list and also a forum where people go to see if someone has been causing a wider problem. Otherwise it becomes impossibly complicated to block from here and the argument "it this a nasty spammer who xyz" becomes "who abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". --AndrewCates 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

reset

In the past I've not been well received on this page so have tended to avoid it and operate local blacklists where I have the rights. However I am increasingly interested in this as at least a clearing house for queries influenced in part by A.B. I have posted to a couple of Foundation mailing lists & I'm hoping to hear other views. I'm happy to review/discuss possible spam issues here whenever I'm around - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If we don't blacklist by default here, then there should be a list or some mechanism (perhaps a bot) that tracks all the entries on the local lists so that other projects can check their links against what's been spammed elsewhere.

Ideally, the bot (or human volunteers) would also run periodic checks using a faster, expanded version of http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/linksearch to see if locally blacklisted links are showing up on any of the 700+ Wikimedia projects. (I say "faster, expanded" since that tool checks up to the 57 largest Wikipedias and may take several minutes when checking 57).

Also, it's hard to rule out cross-wiki spam when our best tool just checks 57 of our 700 projects.

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS, Call me lazy, but maybe it's just easier to just blacklist by default here as opposed to setting up a new coordination system.--A. B. ^(talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

When I was involved into the maintenance of this list, some years ago, I got such complaints by email periodically. It takes a time to reply them courtly but firmly. I think this kind of complaints are better to deal by the local people at first. Also I'm afraid this list affects too much websites. So I don't support "anything on meta and at first" tactics. And as for maintenance, this page is huge and editing is a pain. Single-website affecting spams are better to go to their local list, I think. --Aphaia 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply