Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in June 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.
Proposed additions
Done
Latest comment: 20 years ago60 comments24 people in discussion
(it seems that I added it into removal list by mistake; I moved talk here, too):
The list is very long, so I am putting it into the separate file: Talk:Spam blacklist/2006-05-19-1[archived below]. Links: history of the page: [5]; spamm attaks (removed from the history; if someone wants, I [think that I] can back the pages) : [6], [7]. --Millosh14:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm seing lots of IP's on en adding links to hifrienddd.info to various obscure pages.
I have blocked some of the IP's for being spam-bots, but there seems to be alot of these IP's, see for instance the history of this template. The spam-bot is adding the link if it's not already there, if it is already there it adds an empty line. I have sprotected that particular template, but it seems to just have made the bot pick other pages on en. Please blacklist. Shanes12:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Rex Curry is a banned user on en and general fun net kook, and has been spamming the English Wikipedia (and the net in general) with links to his own website at rexcurry.net (and rants about Wikipedia admins). He's recently started spamming various other language Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects which is time-consuming to clear up. He's posted hundreds, if not thousands, of spam messages since (at least) January 2004[18]. See [19] for evidence of his activities. Matt Crypto19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The website operator has been anonymously posting link to themselves with an increasing frequency and audacity to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_harness
They are clearly interested only in promoting their commercial website and made no attempt to add content to the corresponding wikipedia page. They tried to sneak their link in by all means possible by replacing other links, pretending to be a spam or vandalism edits, etc. It got to the point of being too time consuming to police this page. Chances are that when you look at the page their link will be there again. Here are the IP addresses that they have posted from: 200.78.105.103, 200.53.113.11, 200.78.65.24, 65.2.186.186
The website seems to provide legitimate information. Adding a link to many pages isn't necessarily spam, as a reference may be useful to many pages. Why do you think it is spam? // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
He has been reverted in several wiki's. He has been requested at several wiki's to stop adding his link, but he is not responding. He just goes on placing his link anywhere. The side may also violate copyright. The text seems to have been scanned from a book, using OCR-software. Jcb22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It's an URL redirector which has been used for wikipedia vandalism [20] www.topsearch10.com (the spamming url) could also be added
Platonides18:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
This link is continually added to en:International pen friends, de:International Pen Friends and fr:International Pen Friends. The user who add this pretends it's the official website of IPF for europe. Actually it seems that it's really an IPF site but not specially THE official web site (the official web site is ipf.net.au and there is other "local" web sites). The problem is that the user who add that seems to be the owner of the site and there is a lot of ads on it. The problem began on the italian wikipedia where the behaviour of this user caused the removal of the IPF article which was considered as an advertisment. Here is a message of an italian user who warned us on the french wikipedia:
The site ipfeurope was added on it.wiki and some other wikis by an italian contributor (anonymous on foreign wikis) named Skugnizzo, whose real name is Andrea d'Ambra form Ischia. If you check RIPE, the ipfeurope.com website is registered by Andrea d'Ambra himself. It is enough for a "spam" qualification (at least for it.wiki policies) but let's go on. He added on several wikis the link www.2giugno.com, the italian republic holiday. This domain is registered to Mr. D'Ambra, too. Both sites have (or had) banners and GoogleAds, so he was getting money from them. On IPFeurope you are asked to pay 50 euro or so for membership, with a paypal or bank transfer. To Mr D'Ambra, of course... He added spam to IPFeurope on at least 2 other articles, other spam on Isola d'Ischia, removed some times ago, leading to his "skugnizzo.it" website, and a whole spam page on International pen friends. Not enough? He started an edit war on Giorgio Napolitano adding continuosly a fake charge made by an ultra-right wing newspaper, stating that it was true even if it is clearly diffamatory. No other contributions other then these. I really think it is enough for asking the removal of ipfeurope.it (leading only to a local group, not to the association official webpage). it:Utente:Jollyroger
On the french article, there is now only the official australian web site and a local web site written in french BUT without ads but the user comes everyday to add his/her web site. You can get more information on this problem on the french talk page of this article (in french). Thanks. fr:Discuter:International Pen Friends. Polletfa07:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you also add ipfeurope.eu, ipfeurope.net and ipfeurope.org. The spammer used these address to avoid the blacklisting. I hope this time I don't forget any address. Thanks again. Polletfa07:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Already listed with sites site.voila.fr/cine-passion, cine-passion.site.voila.fr,
nezumi.dumousseau.free.fr, ann.ledoux.free.fr and cechail.site.voila.fr.
Sites created by former French sysop User:Nezumi, who comes back with various IP's for adding the new site perso.orange.fr/jf.dumousseaux. There is also another site created by the samse person: art-passion.site.voila.fr. If needed, ask Alvaro, Solensean or notafish for knowing more about Nezumi or the French Arbitration Committee. Thanks. Hégésippe | ±Θ±06:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a kind of news and propaganda site of a radical catholic group. Links to this site are added for weeks by several IPs and (mostly new) user accounts to different articles in de.wikipedia (examples: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35],
[36]). --FritzG08:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Site being spammed to all "day" articles on en.wikipedia - spamming done by variation of IP addy's, so no easy way to block (other than blocking large range). Examples - [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Obviously with 366 articles and a spammer that only uses 1 IP addy to edit 2 or 3 articles before moving on (thus mass reversions are not possible) some spam is going go undetected for significant periods of time - hence the request for this blacklist addition. SFC939412:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The old spaland spammer is back, now using a googlepages start page. So far I have only spotted two cases
[47], [48], but in past that spammer was very persistant but low-profile and across languages. Ahoerstemeier16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot find any of this in the archives. If someone could find the correct archive, or other evidence, please? - Amgine / talkmeta20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
User:LMF and User:71.28.196.250 have been spamming links to this illegal anime download site on en-wiki. I say illegal because downloading all of those licensed anime that it has linking is nothing but copyright infringement. --Cyde14:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Not done— *.in.ua domains are typically throwaway domains, easily registered and discarded. Blacklisting them doesn't help, since they've already registered new domains by that point. The simplest way to deal with it is to simply revert; it's obvious vandalism. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Capitol Hill Blues
Please add this to the spam list. This is a news site that prints fake news, but dresses it up to look like the real thing. I just caught someone using it as a citation.
Capitol Hill Blue is indeed a terrible site which makes up much of its news. However it isn't spam. If someone is using CHB as a reference, you might want to tell them about how poor the site is and request they cite a more reliable source. But there's no reason to add the site to the spam blacklist. Rhobite04:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
they do posts like this:
Excuse for my post but I do not have money to buy meal to my children. Forgive me please.
freeforen.com/wss/host/casino/free_online_casino_games.html
(list of 100s of spam-sites...)
Not done— these appear to be throwaway accounts on a free webhost. The only way to stop them would be to blacklist freeforen.com, which should be avoided unless accounts on that host becomes a major nuisance. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Reinhard Heydrich
An IP insert in several projects a link to www.reinhardheydrich.org. The IP comes from an anon proxi. I blocked the ip in deWP. --ST?08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Not done— this can be handled by blocking the IP, and doesn't seem to be a significant enough problem to add it to the blacklist. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)`
"We are all looking fsorward to a great sseason in 2005."
Stupid question, does this blacklist only work with URLs, or is it applicable to any type of content? If so, the "We are all looking fsorward to a great sseason in 2005." [sic] might give a better handle on that spammer (example) than the changing pru.in.ua and other links which they use. (until they change it, but they don't seem very bright) Femto17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
See this for another example of this vandal, and another URL that might need blocking (and to answer Femto: I don't know, sorry!). Petros47118:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Not done The spam blacklist only works on what is included inside a link. Adding fsorward or sseason to the list won't stop it Naconkantari03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Napster are now encouraging people to spam Wikipedia ([49]), and offering them commission to do so. No need to block the top level of the site. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Has spammed hundreds of links to any Wikipedia language version that has articles on certain topics pertaining to Mongolia (to verify, follow interwiki links from en:Mongolia, en:Yurt, en:Genghis Khan). While they do present some related pictures, the primary purpose of the site seems to be the promotion of a travel business. --Latebird20:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, most of the pictures are duplicated from [50]. Linking to the original source would be more appropriate in any case. --Latebird19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't necessarily spam; the site seems to be legitimate. Has there been any attempt to notify the user or users that the link is inappropriate or superfluous? // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Very few people add hundreds of links to all available Wikipedia projects for other reasons than spam. The site is also a bait-and-switch operation. They only added the travel business stuff after most of the links were in place. The links got reinserted repeatedly after being removed by other editors. This is less of a problem in the well monitored large projects (eg. english or german language), but the smaller projects will keep suffering. I might be willing to go on one cross-project cleanup expedition, but not several. I haven't contacted them because I didn't expect that to help much with an IP (202.70.41.6, possibly others) that does nothing but add links to their own sites. I can still try that, of course, if it's a requirement. --Latebird11:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Many users promote information on their own website in good faith; they're certainly biased in judging the usefulness of their own websites, but not necessarily spammers. If there's a particular IP spamming the links, at least a token attempt to explain your concern may resolve the situation much more neatly than the spam blacklist. If they continue without response, we'll know they're most likely not acting in good faith. For example, I note that 202.70.41.6 stopped adding the link after a user left the template {{spam}} on their talk page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't noticed that someone already notified him. I also can't find any additions after that date (at least not without an extensive search). I just got annoyed after finding more and more examples over time. I'll start cleaning up a little then, and report back if anything bad happens. --Latebird12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The following two links are continually added to the en:Karate and en:Self-defense articles (on the English Wikipedia) by numerous socks, the latest being en:User:Supermastermoderator. It is highly annoying, and obvious spam. The socks in question never contribute anything else to Wikipedia but the links, over and over, up until when they're blocked, when a new sock account continues right where the last one left off.
Hi, I'm the moderator of SelfDefenseForums.com. We have nothing to do with self-defender.net, which you'll notice is a splog. SDF belongs in the Military Combatives section. We're not spamming for traffic; we get about 5000 hits a day and that's fine with me. Rather, I'm interested in providing legitimate information to those who need it. You'll notice we're not pushing any ads on the site, so I'm confused as to what the financial motivation would be for us to spam. I should point out that you have several links in that section that are dead or completely specious. Gutterfighting.org is Ralph Grasso's site and was excellent but is now closed. You also have a link to Vforcesfc.com which is owned by snakeoil salesmen. If these two links are there, surely a link to SDF should be there; we are a live link with thousands of pages of information, and we're not selling anything. How would you like me to proceed here? I should also note that I don't think I've ever added a link to SDF before, so maybe someone else is doing it (???)
Hi Naconkantari. Thanks for removing it from the blacklist! We don't spam. I'm really interested in this "repeated spamming" of SDF, because we're not doing it.
69.76.20.13818:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)rex221
Can you please provide evidence of this issue? Can you link to articles which have (or have had) links to Webzdarma.cz? - Amgine / talkmeta16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. I was writing an article on w:Witold Dzierzykraj-Morawski a Polish colonel murdered in Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, and wanted to add some references. I found that this page: www.odyssei.com/pl/travel-tips/20376.html has got a pretty decent article on the manor in Oporów, but it's blacklisted. Any way to add it anyway? Halibutt21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Support this enquiry. The page has annoying adverts but the info is genuinly useful, and we want to use it in the above article as an inline reference.--24.131.83.23822:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Done— if the website provides useful information, there doesn't seem to be much reason to blacklist it. Commercial content or adverts are unpleasant, but not spam. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
fuelcellmarkets.com
Dear Wiki-administrators,
www.fuelcellmarkets.com is a valid link to appear on [54]. We're not spammers, although we have previously appeared on spam blacklists due to a spam legacy left to us on our IP address. Would be happy to provide any further information or assurances. Please respond? Thanks!
Support removal. The entry on the blacklist is "fuelcellmarkets", and it probably blocks www.fuelcellmarkets.com by accident. --Kernigh19:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Republika.pl is the biggest Polish free-host and it has tons of valuable information. I have no idea why it is here. Anyway my request concerns www.swiniary.republika.pl - author of this website allowed us to use its content on GFDL license, the problem is we can't even write its adress without warning from spam filter. Vindicator12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Blogcu.com is the largest blog provider in Turkey. There are some spammers (replica watch etc) using this service but we cancel those blogs when they are reported or catched. Blogcu.com is in the spam list. We would be happy if we are removed from the list as soon as possible.
I suggest that we remove www.blogcu.com from the blacklist. If we can find someone who reads Turkish to say that this is a spam site, then we can relist. --Kernigh18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
funpic.de is a websitehoster. Blocking it is like blocking geocities. I tried to add filtersetx.fi.funpic.de to de:Filterset.G. Consider that I do NOT complain about bertelsmann2club.be.funpic.de and aspsupergirls.as.funpic.de! --Phobie15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the official website of the Lumberjack 100 ultra marathon mountain bike race. Trying to add the URL to the wiki generates a blacklist error:
The page you tried to save was blocked by the spam filter because it contained a link to a blacklisted website.
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://www...
has been blacklisted, as fuelcellmarket is in the blacklist, i'm curious to know why. Fuel Cell Markets is a company set up to aid the commericalisation of fuel cell, hydrogen and sustainable energy technologies. We are primarily here to promote the industry and facilitate commerical growth. We also provide assitiance to anyone in any walk of life who is interested in learning about fuel cells. Why has fuelcellmarket been blacklisted, there are other fuel cell companies and information portals in the links page, we are not spammers or a porn site, i'm confused? it was here that i tried to add the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cells, many thanks
Hi, I am the webmaster of Starswelove.com and was adding a few of my pages to wikipedia, I had added about 3-4 pages when it gave me a 'You site is on the blacklist and you cannot add that url anymore' message page. I am hereby requesting the admin to please remove my site from the spam blacklist. I will greatly appreciate it. Thnx & Warm Regards, Gel.
PS : is there any rule to the number of pages from the same domain I can add to wikipedia? I didn't find any info on that when I looked. Thnx!
Update : I had a message from a 'Yamla' today morning explaining why I might have been blacklisted. Thnx for the info. I wasn't aware about it and I am sorry for assuming that commercial or private links [I have seen many of those already added here on wikipedia] could be added. I have spent the better part of the hour trying to understand how the system here works and will try my best to contribute to this wonderful project, staying true to the nature of contributions. I wont be adding any more links to my site, but how do I know that it has been removed from the blacklist? I would really appreciate it if it was. [updated : March 5, 2006; 9:40am; *hotstarrr]
Nascarspace.com was blacklisted due to a specific admin here having an affiliation with a nascar website. I was told if i wanted to be listed that they could offer me a good advertising deal on another site. Nascarspace is a high quality nascar community with zero advertising on it, strictly a discussion community with schedules and stats. Please reverse this
Done— it doesn't look like spam, though it's not necessarily a good reference. Without a date or username attached to the addition, it's quite difficult to find out why it was listed. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
logos.com
The reason why Lexilogos is blocked as spam seems to be a bug in wiki software : the entry logos\.com in the blacklist (added 07:18, 5 March 2006 Raul654) blocks all sites finishing by logos. Please (administrators) : either have the bug fixed, or remove logos entry (replacing logos\.com by www\.logos\.com is another way to solve this problem). Thanks. Croquant07:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposed removal of (sub)page. I don't know how muturzikin got included here. I have no opinion on the site in general, but some subpages are not bad. Someone asked me on my English talk page if it could be removed from the blacklist to enable addition of the link [www.muturzikin.com/carteafrique.htm], which indeed appears to be useful and bona fide.
Proposed addition. In the last months, we've repeatedly had spammers add links to www.nigeria.tz4.com on hundreds of articles related to Nigeria (see this discussion for more details). It would be quite helpful if that site was added to the blacklist. Thanks, — mark✎21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Addition: nigeria.tz4.com redirects to nigeriaplanet.proboards43.com, which has also been added to many Nigeria-related articles. For more discussion, see en:Talk:Lagos. See also the contributions of IP's adding these links: [55], [56]. Please help us save valuable wikitime by adding this one to the blacklist soon. — mark✎08:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete it.. The problem is MArk, I have problem with mark... Mark is only a lier, he just want to win an argument... the Page in question which link is different, as picture to show user.. But because about four people have argrument with mark.. about the page.. But Mark refuse to accept he loses..
I want Mark to be remove as a Moderator.. He even delete me of the system.... this guy is either mad or sick in the brian, how could four of us be wrong.. check is contribution and find out , How many people tried to correct him... so ignor him and is funny way.. I think he neeed to see a doctor.. That is why , he had even muturzikin on the page... he is sick..
Only of wikipedia and other moderator.. good work on your part.. this is a nice website...
Stop the personal attacks, 69.195.84.54. Also, I have removed your sneaky deletion of the problematic links. Don't do that again. To others: I think this editor is making the case clearer than I could ever hope to do. See also the continued discussion over at :en:Talk:Lagos. Thanks for fixing this soon! — mark✎19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
MArk you have problem.. I notice , you deleted your contribution.. Because it would have prove the type of person you here.
I don't want debate on who is who and who do this or that, but my site has to be removed from blacklist (www.muturzikin.com). Some people in french want to add my site for kikongo language. My site is full of linguistic maps and been add everywhere as a good site in linguistic matter. I' m sure that some of you, use it. Let the rest of the wikipedia's world decide if this site is good or not for their own article. That's also concerning south american, european and african languages... stop to be selfish. And I repeat again, that I won't add my site myself anywhere but in basque language (euskara) wikipedia.
Muturzikin 19 March 2006
It seems that Marc Dingmense ignores my messages. I've seen his map contribution and his linguistic maps like this example( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:African_language_families.png )
. I think I found the reason why he blacklists my link and why he doesn't answer to my request to remove my site from it. Compare by yourself ( www.muturzikin.com/carteafrique.htm ) like comparing an encyclopedia and a dictionary. I ask everybody to promote my site for its content and nothing less. No reason that a such site like mine can be blaklisted by Mark Dingmense. Muturzikin 20 March 2006 (UTC)
You would do good to investigate matters somewhat more thorougly before making allegations like this. First, your site has NOT been added to the blacklist by me, in fact I didn't know of this blacklist before your request on my talk page. Second, I have in fact requested for it to be removed: see some sections above this one, where I said the following: Proposed removal of (sub)page.I don't know how muturzikin got included here. I have no opinion on the site in general, but some subpages are not bad. Someone asked me on my English talk page if it could be removed from the blacklist to enable addition of the link [www.muturzikin.com/carteafrique.htm], which indeed appears to be useful and bona fide. Third, if you had watched this page closely over the last few days, you'd see that I was harassed and even got legal threats directed at me by some editor adding links that in fact are spam. I spent some time dealing with that, if you don't mind.
Your allegations are fully out of place here. I once removed a link because it was too generous for the article you added it in, and I explained my doing so on your talk page. I have nothing to do with it being on the blacklist. Please take your words back. — mark✎08:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
First, sorry for what I said, but I keep your words for removing my site from blacklist as soon as possible. With a such contribution at wikipedia, it might won't be long for you. Secondly, my allegations turn after a week of silence from you. My site can be removed as a link anytime and everywhere, but blacklisted...no way and no reason. We talking about facts, transbording languages maps, which is useful for thousands people groups. Finaly, I'm sure we both don't want wasting time with this - Muturzikin 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Replied at your english talk page. You don't seem to understand that I cannot do anything about it since I'm not a sysop here. — mark✎18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a genuine Dean Cain website/fanlisting, but it's listed as spam. Could somebody put it on the whitelist. Thank you. 80.100.103.20013:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a normal Userpage, which in part lists project activities related to the University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Germany. Could you please take it from the blacklist? Thank you! --141.78.130.1907:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I was editing w:Nexuiz#External Links and had my edits refused because savage747.sa.funpic.de/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.HomePage was one of the links. I checked here and saw that funpic.de was blacklisted, although this specific subdomain is fine.
I was trying to edit Zangberg and it says this is a blacklisted link. funpic.de hosts websites free of charge, but there ist one popup when opening a site from this hoster. Could anyone please remove hefz.he.funpic.de from the blacklist? --hhuber6614:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to edit Wonderfalls and it says this is a blacklisted link, but I don't see anything spammish about the site. I must say that it was annoying that I had to create a wikimedia account in order to follow this up. --JeffW02:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is this on the blacklist?? It's just a hosting site.
If one spammer has his site hosted on RipWay, that doesn't mean everyone on RipWay is a spammer!
WikipediaReview.com and kapitalism.net should be un-blacklisted. These sites offer legitimate criticism of Wikipedia which is relevant to several articles and to Wikipedia itself. This is an abuse of the spam black list, as it prevents anyone from talking about them, and hence of acknowledging that Wikipedia is anything other than a perfect product. Please can someone with a little common sense remove these links from the spam black list. 59.167.131.807:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Censoring a voice doesn't stop it, you know. And your misuse of the spam blacklist to censor criticism only makes you look worse. 59.167.131.820:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The link you provide is suggesting to people not to link spam it. Yet you criticise that? I would suggest that you are being extraordinarily abusive, Raul, and that calling it a "troll forum" when at least 3 of its members are prominent critics (Andrew Orlowski, Daniel Brandt, the wiki woo guy) is just laughable. And half of the members are Wikipedia administrators. You are of course upset because the forum has proven that you are an abusive administrator. That, I think, is why you want it black listed. Oh, and obviously the one and only message forum dedicated to criticising Wikipedia belongs in the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Only reason not to have it is if you are trying to censor criticism, trying to pretend that none exists. Or perhaps you'd just like to hide all of your corruption? 59.167.131.816:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Raul, have you considered that the person who spammed those links may have done so with the intent to get the site on the blacklist? I recall that, after lir.wikipediareview.com was blacklisted with the caveat that it not be used for spam, some several dozen accounts were used to spam it on w:wikipedia. (These trolls also linked to w:Last Measure in their edit summaries. A checkuser request on those accounts was not fruitful, because it was not completed until the edits had fallen out of the database.) I don't believe that any respected members of the forum were responsible for spamming those links. I do believe that a troll who had read your message thought it would be a good idea to accomplish a goal. --72.160.68.916:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
wikipediareview.com is on-topic when it comes to Criticism of Wikipedia, being the largest discussion board for such criticisms where notable critics like Daniel Brandt have made repeated appearances. I have, in the past, argued for conditional inclusion of the link in the Wikipedia article; the condition being that no editor has a legitimate libel complaint against wikipediareview.com that the site administrators do not act against. Given the site's relatively high level of noise and flaming, I don't have a very strong opinion either way; however, it is not appropriate to address a topical issue through the spam blacklist. The usual consensus discussion mechanisms and user blocking tools should apply. Only if repeated attempts are made to spam this link in clearly unrelated articles, the blacklist becomes a legitimate filtering tool. Even then, I would be concerned whether the spamming is done by the same people running the site, certainly, it should not be easy to get any site blacklisted by spamming it. The blacklist is a very powerful tool that should be used very cautiously, and here I do not find its use justified.--Eloquence18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
by Eloquence's same logic, lir's kapitalism net would also have to be removed from the spam list, because it was never 'spammed' into any articles, and never placed into any unrelated articles.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by134.161.67.125 (talk • contribs) .
Actually, that link was relevant to the article... It is an episode of Cat Town that Lir directed, being put in to the Cat Town article. Precisely where it belongs. If you think that's spam, you probably think everything is spam. Indeed, everyone else thought it belonged. It was in the article from 14 July 2005 until 9 February 2006, when you deleted it as "spam". If it was spam, it would have been detected a bit earlier. Rather than being spam, it was censorship. Might I advise you, Raul, when trying to make a point, to use more appropriate links, rather than ones that prove you wrong. Blissyu212:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the link needs a justification: Is there any evidence that this particular fan-made art is notable? There's lots of fan-made art for pretty much anything which we generally do not link to. However, as with WP review, I'm not very fond of using the spam blacklist for this. On the other hand, Lir does have a track record of circumventing every ban placed on him, probably dozens if not hundreds of times, and he is apparently keen to add links to his website to multiple articles. Both are patterns typical of spammers: they do not respect site policy, and their interest is in promoting their own work, rather than improving articles. However, unlike a typical spammer, from what I've seen (there was a list of diffs somewhere), the links were to different pages of vanity stuff on Lir's site, and only in topical articles. So, I'm ambivalent. I'd like to hear what others think. If there are no objections, I think we can remove kapitalism.net for a trial period and see if it is treated in accordance with Wikipedia policy.--Eloquence23:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It may well be that his Cat Town animation is non-notable, however it was indisputably not spam. To link to a Cat Town animation in the Cat Town article is wholly appropriate. The spam black list should not be used to win an edit war. Blissyu208:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Eloquence's comments; this seems like pretty clear misuse of the spam blacklist for a purpose other than blacklisting spam. --Delirium04:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to customize my monobook with my own background and logo, but h1.ripway.com (the website i'm using) is blocked! Can you please change this? -Crüsäder
I was trying to edit the German project site http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Jeanpol/IPK on which there is a link to one of our students project sites. I don't see any danger about this very serious, good website. Could you plaese remove it from the blacklist? Here is the link: panikpansen.pa.funpic.de Sorry, I cannot get logged in the Meta wiki --89.58.42.506:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
What's the matter with the blacklisting system ? It seems out of order today, as I could successfully introduce forbidden URLs like tinyurl.com Teofilo14:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
C'est fait. Comme il ne semble pas possible d'autoriser explicitement un sous-domaine, j'ai retiré le site "blogspirit.com" de la liste. Korg+ +01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I was trying to update the article for the Carcassonne board game ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcassonne_(board_game) ) and it says my link is blacklisted. I wanted to add this page that shows the game tiles, http://ccgildenDOTccDOTfunpicDOTde/home/tippsDOThtml . The page does have a pop-up ad, maybe that is why it is being blocked? Anyway that is a very useful page for Carcassonne players so please let it be on the page. I replaced the .s with DOTs so that the software will stop bugging me about the URL. Thanks =)
Freehosting server mujweb.cz is too broad to be put on blacklist. It contains many useful pages. For example in cs:Brno there is a link to hantec vocabulary on this server. Current addition to the blacklist affects around 30 pages on Czech Wikipedia (Google search [57]). Please remove it or replace by a more specific string. Thanks. --RuM12:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Seconded, a problem on sk:wp, too. It's already commented out on line 1325 as "too broad", then listed again on line 1624. ~~helix8416:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I was editing [58] amd couldn't save because someone previously had added a link to www presse-partner de and the system said that this website is on the spamfilter. I checked the link and found it useful. Here is the specific link, please check.
This web site is completely legitimate and provides a free browser-based chat system to users interesting in roleplaying games. I honestly can't fathom why it's been blacklisted or what harm could possibly have been attributed to it. 68.229.159.13304:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 20 years ago88 comments44 people in discussion
xxxporntalk.com
Editing w:Cytherea_(erotic actress), wanted to include reference to the comments of Gen Padova made at thread number 48623 in the "general discussion" section of the abovementioned site.
If feeling that http should not be blacklist, because they carry wikipedia links back to the original page on wikipedia.. See example.. lagos link. Another thing, most after do not know about wikipedia, so the site help to redirect them to wikipedia..
The problem is that Mr MArk want to win a point, and would do anything to win. even lies.. Is so call after links contain wrong information on africa.. I would ask mr Mr to tell us if he as even been to africa.. As an africa. I know my people well and would be able to state of causes. I would tell you that some of the links Mark place on this pages, show African as fraudster, more of hate links, which is to show black people or Nigeria as thief, who are only interest in your credit card.. I do not do that and so are many africa abroad or in africa. Everyday , americans go to jail for fraud, but mr Mark have not gone to the US section of wikipedia and include picture or links to people american have rob.. If one america is a thief, does that make all america thieves, if it applied to americans, it also applied to Nigeria..
2 Wikipedia is an informative site.. It sell CORRECT information to people, if your site is use by people like mr Mark to sell the wrong information , you are liable under law for deformation of the character against the people of Nigeria and africa as a whole... many site are links to your site, which are external, but i have not see mr mark go after does site.. Which is double stardard under the law.. sub section 18 of the business act.
See en:Talk:Lagos#How can you_have a Place without Picture for a detailed discussion of this link. The argument of the above editor boils down to the following: (1) good images on Nigeria-related articles are a Good Thing; (2) the nigeriaplanet.proboard43 site is a good source for images. Other editors of Nigeria-related articles fully agree with the first point, but consider the second point to be in the wrong because that site, aside from having a few pictures, is full of commercial links. The above editor has been told to upload good pictures to Commons; he has even been offered help in doing so. To repeat, the link mentioned has too much commercial content on it to qualify as a good en:Wikipedia:External link. And for the last time: stop the accusations of racism, you really have picked the wrong person and your attitude doesn't help your case in the least. — mark✎20:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Brandt has redirected all incoming links from Wikipedia to the Wikipedia Review. But the placement of his sites on the spam list has made [59] and [60] nearly impossible to edit. We've already placed nowiki tags around all the links, this should be sufficient. The spam filter in this case isn't preventing spamming, it's preventing editing and discussion. Gamaliel21:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't fully know what is going on but I do know I tried to remove the comment of banned user Daniel Brandt [comment here] and was unable to due to a spam filter that said blocked user appears to have inserted in the text making it impossible to remove said text and thus giving a launchingpad for a blocked user's comments to avoid deletion, SqueakBox21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It hasn't made it impossible to edit the daniel brandt article, because I removed the links. Whats the problem? Yes there are some pages that are a pain to edit, because these sites were widely spammed on Wikipedia, but it's fairly straight forward to remove the urls. I'll fix the pages you've mentioned. --Gmaxwell22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and at the same time you removed citations of article sources. Nobody wants to link to the WR, but now we can't even type in the url. The nowiki tag should be sufficient. There is no need for this spam block. Gamaliel02:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
A little bit more to reply, Gamaliel.. the links were not blacklisted so much because of their redirected existance on the Brandt article, but because the links also exist on zillions of other Wikipedia pages (mostly namebase). In many of the cases these links were obvious spam, but not all... but now that Brandt had chosen to redirect they are all spam. The spam blacklist only prevents people from external linking, .. which they shouldn't be doing because of the redirects. It does not stop discussion. --Gmaxwell22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This is silly. He only redirects from clicks that have wikipedia in the window history. It's easily defeatable my middle-mouse clicking (or open link in new window). It's hardly spam. --70.190.27.10502:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Er, it only redirects when users behave in the way that 100% of them normally do, which happens to be the only way that a huge number of users know how to follow a like.. sure.. no big deal. Sure, having dozens and dozens of biography articles link to Wikipedia review isn't spam.. sure.. --Gmaxwell05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt wants the articles about him to be deleted from Wikipedia. Seeing the censorship of Wikipedia Review, he decided to take advantage of that by redirecting his sites from there (at least when linked from Wikipedia) with an aim for them to be listed on the spam black list, destroying verifiability, and hence moving towards his articles being deleted. He has succeeded in this aim. Finally, Wikipedia are doing what Daniel Brandt wants them to do. This represents a good compromise, and they should remain on the spam black list. You can feel free to link to the various things that Daniel Brandt says on the Wikipedia Review. There is no problem with you doing that. But of course "nobody" wants to link to a "troll site" do they? Blissyu203:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Blissyu2, you are banned on enwiki and you'll be banned here as well if you troll related to enwiki here too. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote your preferred site, so get over it. If our Brandt article can't be supported except by material on Brandt's own sites which he can and will alter at any time, then our article indeed should be deleted. And in any case, we've left the references in for now, although not as external links.--Gmaxwell05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
"If our Brandt article can't be supported except by material on Brandt's own sites which he can and will alter at any time, then our article indeed should be deleted." - I could not agree more with this statement. Raul65406:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you call this "trolling"? I thought that I was doing precisely what meta was here for - discussion of other projects. And last I checked, Gmaxwell, you were not an administrator on meta. Of course, I wasn't banned for trolling, but let's not get in to that now. Blissyu210:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
In internet explorer, use the menu (right click) and open the link in new foreground tab. This also works in Maxthon. This is hardly "spam". Nor is it hard to defeat and can be defeated with the most popular browser. Please remove the block so that the spam control can go after legitimate spam instead of a Daniel Brandt hunt. --Tbeatty01:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that everyone agrees that Daniel Brandt's sites are not spam. And that, whilst your idea works, the reality is that the vast majority of people who look at a Wikipedia article have never edited an article on Wikipedia, and hence instructions for how to get around the redirection won't help matters much. Daniel Brandt made the redirect so that his sites would be delisted from Wikipedia, with a further aim to have the articles about him deleted from Wikipedia. By adding the sites to the spam black list, Wikipedia are doing what Daniel Brandt wants them to do. And, when you consider how most published biographies work, i.e. with permission from the individuals concerned except when they are a convicted criminal and it is in relation to their criminal behaviour, Wikipedia should have a policy that a person can request for their biography to be deleted, especially in cases of marginal notability. So Wikipedia are doing what they should have done all along, and hopefully this leads to the articles about him being deleted. I think that it was a good thing to add these sites to the spam black list. Blissyu216:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I just had to remove a link to his site on the George Ball article, just to get my edit to go through. Can we please just take his site off the damn filter?--Kross07:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me try. I connected to one of the blacklisted sites with telnet, typed the four bold lines, then typed an empty line.
$ telnet www.scroogle.org 80
Trying 64.251.22.6...
Connected to www.scroogle.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.1User-Agent: someone typing in telnetReferer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewtingHost: www.scroogle.org
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:03:09 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
Location: http://wikipediareview.com/
Content-Length: 235
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<html><head>
<title>301 Moved Permanently</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Moved Permanently</h1>
<p>The document has moved <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/">here</a>.</p>
</body></html>
Connection closed by foreign host.
If I use http://en.wikiquote.org as my referer, I get the normal Scroogle page. So links from Wikiquote to Scroogle would still work.
However, this is abuse. I recommend that Scroogle and the others stay on the blacklist for all Wikimedia projects. --Kernigh22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Because, for referrers from Wikipedia, they redirect to http://www.wikipediareview.com/ . Whilst they are both affiliated with each other, and hence its still relevant, Wikipedia has taken the view that they don't want to "advertise" for a "non notable" forum. This was an idea of Mistress Selina Kyle, to take advantage of Wikipedia's censoring of Wikipedia Review. Amusingly, it actually worked. 203.122.231.19506:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a strange spam blacklist. The home page of Scroogle has been on it for a couple of weeks, and yes, the home page of www.scroogle.org is indeed redirected to Wikipedia Review. But yesterday an editor changed the link in the Wikipedia article on Scroogle, from the home page to www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm internal page. That one is not redirected -- I purposely did not put a redirect in the cgi-bin directory for any of my sites. But I don't understand how this editor was able to change this link yesterday without getting intercepted by the spam blacklist. Is it because a different form of the Scroogle link existed in the article prior to its listing on the blacklist? (That's the same thing as saying that the list is checked against all NEW domains that show up in an edit of a page.) Or does the blacklist only work on home pages and not deeper pages for that site? Either way, it seems like a strange way to do things. --Daniel Brandt 68.91.252.1618:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The blacklist filters on hostnames. The link could only be added because the blacklist was temporarily out of order.--Eloquence00:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I TRIED to delete "See also /Delete", a dead link, from here on internet explorer and I got a spam filter warning for tinyurl.com:
Spam protection filterFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchThe page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This was caused by a link to an external site.
See the spam blacklist on Meta for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please request that it be fixed on the spam blacklist talk page. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://t*nyurl.com
I then tried to complain about it, and I get the same message here!
I think because I was complaining about the message and I copy and pasted http://t*nyurl.com also.
How can people complain about these messages if they cut and paste the messages they are complaining about and the same spam blacklist blocks them from complaining?
I figured out the problem, on the page I was tring to edit was: http:/tiny*rl.com/yt8xt, which was blocking the entire edit.
I would suggest:
Changing the text of the warning screen. Delete the "http://" before the blacklisted webpages, allowing wikiusers to cut and paste their problems here.
Explain on the warning screen that if a user attempts to save an entire page, and if one of the links is a newly blacklisted site, wikipedia will not allow the wikiuser to save it, suggest to the user:
Go back and edit only a small section of the site without the blacklisted link, not the entire page. OR
No - TinyURL (and any other URL shortner/redirect) allows a trivial workaround for the blacklist, so it must (as a matter of necessity) stay on the list. However, it's trivial to fix pages that use it - [61]. Raul65423:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm Elitre from it.wiki. I just found out that snipurl's urls are considered as spam. I just want to say that this choice gives me lots of problems. When searching for copyright's violations, we use Copyscape which generates veeery long urls; we paste these urls in some templates, user page and so on, but they won't work if not "snipped". (Here you should see 266 words matching.) Elitre
As we discussed earlier (check the archive), allowing URL shorteners is an extremely bad idea, as it renders the blacklist totally useless. Link URLs can be put in single brackets like this - [http://www.google.com] - so that the page doesn't look too long. Raul65405:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I added that link to prove that it doesn't work ( you don't get the result you aim at).Elitre
That linking-to-it-while-it-is-on-the-spam-list doesn't work is not in question. The real issue is - should we allow any URL shorteners? And the answer is no - it just creates far too many potential problems. Raul65405:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
although this is for sure a non-neutral and spam-prone site, this is right now the only place I could find that has the 1898-Alfred-Russel-Wallace-book "Vaccination a Delusion" online available in full-text. Until some neutral site, e.g. the Gutenberg project, takes this over, we need to reference this one to show Alfred Russel Wallace's point of view about the topic: http://www <dot> whale <dot> to/vaccine/wallace/book.html (wikipedia article referencing this is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace, last footnote). --212.144.120.14316:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Not done. That domain has been a major nuisance with spammers; too much so to unblacklist. Whitelisting a specific subpage isn't technically possible yet, as far as I know. You might consider uploading the text to Wikisource, the Wikimedia Foundation project collecting published texts. If you decide to do so, please take the time to read the local inclusion policy and style guide. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
scully1888.freewebpage.org
I wrote a pretty in-depth guide to ghost sightings in the Ghostwatch DVD and wanted to post a link to it on Ghostwatch's wiki entry, but the link was blocked (no doubt because it's hosted by freewebpage.org).
I would appreciate it if someone could please take scully1888.freewebpage.org off the Blacklist.
iamtv.tv/snakesonaplane
Someone blacklisted this as spam without warning. It was put in the article because it has plot info on the SNL episode located in the article's trivia section. I don't understand why this was blacklisted without any warning or discussion at all? It wasn't intended as spam, it was info on the SNL episode that unfortunately isn't available at the official SNL site. If someone would have discussed this with me and told me this was somehow against the rules, I would have gladly removed the link myself.
I never reverted it or anything, but iamtv.tv was blacklisted on the spot. I would greatly appreciate if someone would remove this URL from the blacklist.
Not done— The domain iamtv.tv was blacklisted, not that particular page. The site doesn't seem like a particularly useful reference, and it isn't technically possible to whitelist a specific subpage yet so far as I know. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Fisheaters.com
Could this site be removed from the blacklist? I would like to add it to the entry "Traditionalist Catholics" if I could. 70.236.4.4521:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
See en:User:JzG/Fisheaters. I have no confidence that the (anonymous) operator of this site will do anything other than what she did before: add the site (in preference to either content or links to the same content at more authoritative sites) to large numbers of articles. Oh, and edit-war over its removal. Prior to its addition to the blacklist I was scanning the project monthly for new links and finding anything up to ten new links each time, on various language versions, many with misleading desriptions (Catholic view of foo or traditional Catholic view of foo - this is a Traditionalist - i.e. dissenting from the mainstream Vatican II - site). I also found several additions with misleading edit summaries, and at least one to the full text of a particular rite which was also available from the (demonstrably more authoritative) Vatican site. I don't recall any of these additions being by logged-in users. So: what we lose by having the site on the blacklist is one link to a monograph of unproven authority in one article; what we gain is a saving in time for me, scanning the project for the anonymous addition almost certainly by the site operator of linkspam. You can see why that looks like an easy call to me, but I'm not the meta sysop. en:User:JzG23:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The site owner isn't anonymous. Her name is Tracy Lopez, she can be reached at vox@fisheaters.com, she is at the site's forum most every day, she helps host Bible studies on Fridays in the chat room, etc. The site is a traditional Catholic site and is "authoritative" enough for Latin Mass Magazine: http://latinmassmagazine.com/resources/resources_main.html70.236.4.4504:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
alphaworks.ibm.com
Aliens have landed when IBM Alphaworks is reported as a spam site. Is this a joke? A hiccup in the spamfilter? Was I on the wrong server in Beta Centari? Those people have never much liked the Alphazoids. So far just once, on a link that's been there for the longest time in the en:Cell microprocessor article. I was just adding a new category, that's all. Ack! Couldn't save here either until I munged the above URL. MaxEnt.
Eight current occurrences is not "hundreds". Anyway, the quality of site can be of help, since they could have an efficient abuse services to shutdown users violating TOS and spamming around. --M/22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
huh? who cares about de.wikipedia.org? im talking the entire site. and yes its probably hundreds of sites, if youre bored enough do a search for all of them; anyway, dont be a smartass and remove the ban, even if its 8 websites its 8 unjustified bans. none of the users can be made responsible for someone elses fuckup. if wikipedia is so "efficient" about spamming it shold have been a narrow ban, including ohost subdomains and not the current totally dumb global ban. --80.134.140.9401:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you point to an article which would have a specific need for a link from an ohost.de website? The reason I ask is that freehosts which allow forwarding/spam sites often damage hundred to thousands of articles across 600+ wikimedia websites, and possibly thousands of other MediaWiki installations. Usually we would want at least some direct and specific justification for unlisting a farm which has developed a bad enough reputation to get listed here. - Amgine / talkmeta04:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
sweb.cz, mujweb.cz, wz.cz, xf.cz
Those are major freeweb providers in the Czech Republic. They host thousands of websites, most of them legitimate. Some of them have been previously added to the spamlist and then removed (on request) as too broad. Now, they are back again. Because of that, for instance, our page on the Czech election from last weekend can not even link to the official page of a (tiny) political party taking place in the election (chnj.wz.cz). For some insight to the problem, try e.g. [62], [63], [64].
The last readdition of sweb.cz, commented "restored, Webhost's responsibility"... well, I am not sure what to say: I believe it is not our task to educate webhosts (BTW, how could a webhost prevent someone creating a spamsite?), but to write an encyclopedia (dictionary, etc.). I could understand if you need a temporary URL block affecting many good sites to fight a bot spammer. But such block must be temporary and you have to remove it shortly afterwards.
Thanks for removing those sites from the blacklist and never adding them again.
I concur with Mormegil. Consider en:VisualBoy Advance. Since this ban has been put in place, it is impossible to edit it without removing the link to the VBALink emulator - a link which I strongly believe should stay. If a specific website on the wz.cs domain has spammed, ban that one - don't ban them all. TerraFrost07:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Another strong support for Mormegil. I'm afraid wz (which is another domain name of webzdarma.cz freeweb), sweb and mujweb just have to be let in. It's like trying to ban the whole Geocities.
Just a note: Splarka's test is wrong for using "inurl:wiki"; it thus catches a lot of other MediaWiki installations thate aren't Wikipedia. site:[cs|en].wikipedia.org is much more relevant.
Another note: it should be possible to cirumvent mujweb.cz ban by using mujweb.atlas.cz domain with the rest of URL the same: original freeweb provider Mujweb has been acquired by Atlas portal. --Maly ctenar13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Counternote: It is NOT wrong, and in fact searching all (or at least, many) mediawiki installations on google was done on purpose. Because these links are already blacklisted here, the results for just Wikimedia-based wikis are much LESS relevant and would give false information as to the amount of spam links vs relevant links on wikis that come from these domains. Splarka20:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem becomes how many hundreds and thousands of times do we get vandalised accross 600 Wikimedia Foundation wikis (and thousands of other MediaWiki installations) to support how many legitimate links on cs.wikipedia? The last series involved many sites, both inside and outside of the Foundation.
I will ask a developer to search the cs.wp database for the number of occurences of these domains, but I suspect it will be a rather small number of articles actually affected. - Amgine / talkmeta15:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Amgine: Exactly. Based on the google-wide numbers (since spambots target more wikis than just Wikipedia), mujweb.cz definitely should not be unblacklisted (the others are probably safe to remove). Splarka20:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
First: if you think some of those are disputable, remove at least the others now, please. Second: I am really sorry about the other users of this blacklist (really! I have even helped some MW users set up anti-spam measures a few times in the past). But I believe writing an encyclopedia should be more important for this server than other people's spam protection. If there's a need to split the list to Wikimedia-relevant part and world-relevant part, so be it, I don't really care. And third: a blacklist with known false positives is competely useless IMNSHO; at least until a working whitelist would be available.
Finally: if mujweb.cz will stay on the blacklist, I can live with that because of a known workaround mujweb.atlas.cz; I don't know what I'll do at the time you'll block that alternative, too. Currently, we have around 80 articles linking to mujweb.cz; among those links is e.g. an official page of a small municipality.
wz.cz contains two useful websites for Half-Life 2: ravenholm.wz.cz/english.html and stalk3r.wz.cz/eng/main.htm --Pizzahut13:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I also think, that for at least cs.wikipedia.org these domains should be allowed, these are major freeweb providers in the Czech Republic. For en.wikipedia.org they can stay disabled. --Ludek11:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This is impossible at the moment, because there is no local whitelist feature present. However, the developers said it might be done in the near future. — Timichal • 11:15, 10. Jun 2006
Yes, please unblock. I just had to remove a valid external link from the SubRip article in Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 on WP
Please, unblock at least wz.cz now. Many users of cs.wikipedia.org are confused or angy because of it and I really understand them. --Dezidor14:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
--Aktron14:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) I think this time things have gone too far. We have to block spam sites based on their content, not according of their name; name of site or provider says absolutely nothing. This spamlist I think should be reduced by tens of percents.
Not done— these websites often host spam websites. Unblacklisting them will make every website using this list more vulnerable to spammers using automated account creation and spam bots. A basic turing test (as used by Wikimedia wikis) to prevent automated account creation should make them less liable to abuse. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps they can crack down on obvious spam domains or some such. The unfortunate fact remains they these domains are heavily exploited by spammers, and thus fit the criteria for blacklisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI: I was told (on IRC) that these domains will not be removed regardless of their relative necessity for Czech-language encyclopedia, unless there would be local whitelisting implemented in MediaWiki (this was commented as "the old cold day in hell defense"). If somebody would bother about commenting on my bugzilla:6321, that would be fine, but I don't believe that would help, anyway.
For a bit of enlightment: a joke I've just read: Wikimedia hosts large, diverse wikis with many thousands of external links, hence the Wikimedia blacklist is comparatively conservative in the links it blocks. (SpamBlacklist's README) – good joke, isn't it?
There are many wikis; the Czech Wikipedia is one. If a domain is a nuisance to many wikis but useful to one, we unfortunately must weigh in favour of helping the many. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
(Just a note: my reply was not meant as a specific answer to you, but as a general remark to the whole hypothetical audience.)
"There are many wikis" -- yes, there are, which is exactly the point of the note in the README file. But that file has obviously been written at time when a useful link had to be let in because our mission is to write encyclopedia, not to educate webhosts or provide spam prevention service to the rest of the Internet.
Really, I don't care now, I have accepted the situation bad as it is and will act up to it. In fact, I would recommend blocking the whole .cz domain: it is useful only to one wiki, and there really is not much difference about having blocked "only" wz.cz, or the whole Czech internet. (Maybe you should consult en:Country code top-level domain for other candidates for blocking.)
Current situation is really unbearable. You cannot sacrifice cswiki for comfort on other wikis! This has a serious influence on quality of articles since the wz.cz domain contains many relevant materials supplementary to encyclopedic content. (Not mentioning wikipedian homepages.) People on cswiki are getting frustrated by this. One cannot even correct a typo in an article without removing or destroying relevant links which were in the article for a long period with no problem. It's difficult to explain the reasons and more difficult to accept them. Without local whitelists, this is a serious problem. The filter shlould be disabled for cswiki or the wz.cz domain should be removed instantly. --Egg21:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please delete this website from the spam list? This is the official website of the Hungarians in Carpatho-Ukraine. How could it get ti the list anyway?
kelenbp 18:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC
International Pen Friends. I don't know anything about this site beyond the fact that is has something to do with pen pals and that it's on the blocked list. It is used in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail
It's not broken - we simply realized (after the GNAA used URL shortners to link to malware from wikipedia) that URL shortners are a huge security issue and should be terminated on the spot. Yes, this will create transition problems (sorry nobody thought of this when wikipedia was new) but it's better now than later. Raul65421:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This blacklist has caused a great deal of lost data
I was doing a MAJOR rehaul of the -childbirth- article talk page on Wikipedia. Someone had a blocked list already in the talk page. It was already there, it wasn't stopped that time. I didn't add it. It was not added in my edit. All my edits, which took about 20 minutes to make, were lost. All of them. I clicked 'back' and it was back to the previous version. Normally... when say, someone edits it, it tells you, but it keeps a copy of your changes. Not this time.
Please fix this. It causes great waste of time and frustration on the part of Wikipedian editors. Please contact me with reply...Tyciol08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I used the back arrow on my browser and I did not lose my edits. I replaced the offending domain (makeashorterlink\.com) with the target URL. (See diff for details.) --jwalling21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
In addition to suggestions about how to reword the warning screen, I would like to reemphasize Joema ignored idea:
What about adding a note to the Wikipedia talk pages for w:TinyURL, etc, saying usage in Wiki articles is now deprecated, and starting 6-Feb-2006, edits will fail if a link shortening URL exists anywhere in the article? Joema14:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand and agree with Raul654's argument, but I think this needs to be handled better.
Change the warning screen (as per my suggestion above) which explains to users better what is going on.
Maybe create a bot to destroy all of the w:TinyURL links, replacing them with a link to a wiki explanation page, explaining how to fix the link? It would be simple: have the bot replace:
The TinyURL article already says that it's blacklisted by Wikimedia (here is the diff where it was added, a week ago). What's the point in putting a similiar message on the talk page, which is less likely to get seen? Raul65416:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I've made this point before, but it's worth repeating: Tinyurl.com is only one of many similar services. (see notlong.com/links) Be prepared for diversification by spammers. --jwalling22:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I replaced a tinyurl link with the target URL and I inserted the Logo turtle graphic. I don't think this was a Lexilogos issue. --jwalling22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You need to provide more information. Are you referring to the English page at wikipedia:talk:Prem Rawat or are you using a different language? The English page is being actively edited and looks okay. What did you try to insert? --jwalling19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I was editing the page for Fission Chicken, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_Chicken , trying to add a new link to a webcomic page at http://www.fissionchicken.com -- but then I got a notice saying the edit could not be saved, because of a (pre-existing) link to .snipurl.com/FissionChicken. But that snipurl link has been valid for a year now. Could this link be whitelisted, so new edits will be saved? Thanks - Klang99 5-27-06
I wanted to save www.willighp.de/evo/siedlung/erectus.php?PHPSESSID=f22934261bfd58df8ecb57d3778a4e18 <-- this Website and the spam filter said that they detected www.namebase.org and could not save the page. I don't know what this means, but could someone please solve this problem. thanks --84.191.233.14220:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (de:SoIssetEben!)
The website you are trying to link to is not blocked. The article that you were trying to edit has a link to www.namebase.org included in it, so any edits made to the page will not succeed until that link is removed. Naconkantarie|t||c|m20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to create an archive of entries to Talk:Aztec up through December 31, 2005. However, when I try to save the archive page, the save is blocked by the spam filter complaining of tinyurl.com. I can't find this URL in the Talk Page entries but then again I haven't read every line word-for-word. Perhaps it got into the Talk Page before tinyurl.com was added to the spam filter. Here's the URL in question:
The problem with tinyurl is that it is used as a redirect for other sites. If you can find where the tinurl website redirects to, then you can probably put the redirected link in to the article. Tinyurl has to remain on the spam blacklist, and its unlikely that any exceptions will be made either. 59.167.139.22615:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Bad regexs causing SpamBlacklist extension to not work
Sorry for adding this to the top, but I've been noticing on my Mediawiki site, which uses this list for blacklisting spam, that since about April 27th the following errors have been appearing on my php.log, and spam stopped getting blocked.
[07-May-2006 12:13:02] PHP Warning: Compilation failed: nothing to repeat at offset 22195
in /var/www/seattlewiki/extensions/SpamBlacklist/SpamBlacklist_body.php on line 150
I think the problem is that there are some entries in this list that start with a *; that is not a valid regex, since * needs to repeat some expression before it (thus the "nothing to repeat").
The offset 22195 above refers to the following regex (followed by some other bad ones):
I think those entres need to be changed to not have a * at the beginning, or to have .* instead.
Thanks, Matiasp20:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Posting to the top actually makes your comment less likely to be noticed. Amgine fixed it, but it hadn't propagated to the Wikimedia servers yet, so I tried an earlier version. I now reverted back to Amgine's version, which should be fine.--Eloquence00:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Still broken. Looking through the history deeper I see a few spurious regexps.
hydrocodone?\.ds4a\.com "hydrocodon\.ds4a\.com" gets no googles, why the optional e?
green-tea?\.netfirms\.com same
buy-viagra-online?\.tripod\.com ditto
club2.blog-city.com should be "club2\.blog-city\.com" or replace the lot with "club\d?\.blog-city\.com"
freesexxx\1.blog-city\.com
freesexxx\2.blog-city\.com
freesexxx\3.blog-city\.com
freesexxx\4.blog-city\.com \1 is a backreference and since there hasn't been a closed group yet the behavior is undefined (it could blow up, silently fail, treat it as empty, throw an error), obviously that isn't what is wanted. "freesexxx1\.blog-city\.com" or "freesexxx\d?\.blog-city\.com"
.sx98\.com possible they wanted the dot, but most likely meant "\.xs98\.com"
Are we supposed to be able to link to websites that are on the spamlist at this talk page? Or is the spam blacklist not working right now? (See here for the posting that started this inquiry.) So here's a test:
Conclusion: Unless this talk page is excluded from the spam link-catching filter, the blacklist is not working. Can someone enlighten me? — mark✎18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The above four links are on the main blacklist page (the upper two are the first two entries, and the other two were recently added in response to a request of mine. — mark✎17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to cite something from a subdomain of this spam-blocked domain, but can't. Can someone (the article suggests User:Korg) confirm this is intentional and perhaps point me to the reasoning? Thanks very much. — JEREMY 17:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
peticija. They're a highly partisan site who seem to have originated a widely-quoted press release related to the w:Bosnian pyramids. — JEREMY 05:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's disconcerting to have mediawiki accuse me of being a spammer every time I try to edit my user page. (Wikitruth misattributed a quote to me; I linked to the quote to clarify what it was I was getting mad about. I could take the links off, but then I'd confuse anyone who wasn't already familiar with the whole thing.) Tlogmer 06:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Tlogmer06:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. When things like Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review are being added to the spam black list, yet were never once used for spam, and are valid references to several Wikipedia articles, calling this the "spam blacklist" is inappropriate. Some have argued, with regards to Wikitruth, that the issue is one of libel, and to that I agree. However, shouldn't Wikipedia just go outright and sue Wikitruth? That seems like a better option, and less childish than listing it on the spam blacklist. List it on the spam blacklist and you help Wikitruth. Wikipedia should sue them. I am sure that they would win. Its not even debatable really. Is there any hypothetical way that what Wikitruth is doing could be considered to be legal? They are repeating libellous content that was deleted because it was libellous. As for Wikipedia linking to Wikitruth then acting as an assumption that Wikipedia is supporting the libellous statements, this is false. Wikipedia are not liable for the content of third party sources. Just like how Slashdot has never been sued, and indeed never will be sued because of what their posters post about. This is a simple open and shut case.
However, that being said I do agree that Wikitruth should not be linked to from Wikipedia. The reason is pretty similar to what Wikimedia's lawyer has said, because of the libel. Wikipedia should not be seen to be encouraging libel, which they would be doing by linking it.
For this reason, there should be a 2nd list, for "sources that Wikipedia does not want to be affiliated with", and in this list Wikitruth.info should be listed. Alternatively, the "spam blacklist" should be renamed in to something that incorporates the legitimate need to add non-spam links. Doubleblue.info is a similar case as well.
As for Wikipedia Review being added (and removed, at least for now), this is more of a case of Wikipedia not wanting to promote a site which says bad things about it. This is an entirely different kind of issue. Unlike Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review is not doing anything illegal, and are very careful not to break any laws, and Wikipedia will never sue them. Thus it is more of an issue about not wanting to acknowledge criticism. However, so long as Wikipedia publicly states that they acknowledge criticism, with the existence of such articles as en:Criticism of Wikipedia, they need to include sites like WR. They cannot be picky and choosey as to which criticism they are going to like. Criticism is quite simply that - its stuff that you don't want them to say. Does anyone like any criticism? Of course they don't.
Some people have suggested that using Wikipedia Review as a source in articles on Wikipedia is a bad idea. For example, it was used as the place where Daniel Brandt first announced the name of the John Seigenthaler Sr libeller, just before he posted the same information on Slashdot, which in turn was prior to his making his own page about it. If Wikipedia wishes to accurately report about that scenario, they need to acknowledge that source as well. Similarly, Daniel Brandt has chosen to redirect all of his pages when the referrer is Wikipedia straight to Wikipedia Review. They were also prominent with regards to a number of Wikipedia-related disputes, and are also relevant to the Wikitruth and Andrew Orlowski articles.
The argument for not including the site as a reference seems to be because, as a forum, posts can be changed, or altered. Yet we use Slashdot as a source. Why can't we say that, as of this date, this is what it said. All sources on the internet can change. This does not prevent something from being able to be used as a reference. Reliable sources does not mean that a source has to be uneditable.
Of course, if we were to use Wikipedia Review, or Wikitruth, or a similar site, as a source for something like talking about what Quantum mechanics is, then they are not a reliable source. But when what has been said there is backed up by third party sources, they are a reliable source, as is the case with Wikitruth, Daniel Brandt and the Seigenthaler controversy.
Sometimes I think that we forget that the aim of Wikipedia is accuracy. Sometimes we worry too much about trying to look good. Accuracy is more important. 203.122.231.19507:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review was never suggested for the blacklist because it says "bad things about Wikipedia". There are many web sites which say bad things about Wikipedia (including Wikipedia itself), none of which are on the blacklist. Wikipedia Review is notable in that it allows very serious personal attacks against people contributing to Wikipedia. On the old WR board, I saw a thread accusing a Wikipedia admin of perusing the services of a prostitute. In another thread, an Internet shock picture was presented as showing a notable administrator. Yet another thread made fun of an administrator's teeth and personal life.
This has nothing to do with "criticism of Wikipedia". Rather, it is an example of a group of people who will support each other's pubescent and hateful behavior as long as they can somehow relate it to Wikipedia. It is a case of "because I can": "I was banned from Wikipedia, so I will violate all social norms on another website because I can. See if you can stop me now!" Of course Wikipedia Review also contains reasoned, sometimes fair criticism. But it is mingled with very personal attacks. A legitimate reason to blacklist WR (though not necessarily through the spam blacklist) would be a case of very serious libel against a WP user which is not deleted from WR in spite of the user's insistence that it should be. Linking to the site after being informed of such libel could open up Wikipedia to legal liability.
Because nobody has yet come forward with such a request, the link is not on the blacklist. But to present this as somehow being about "criticism of Wikipedia" is highly disingenuous.--Eloquence12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken with regards to the "accusation" of dealing with a prostitute. We quoted and linked to a court hearing in which a prominent Wikipedia administrator was found guilty of soliciting prostitution. And then Wikipedia banned users who posted links to this court case. Perhaps you are just manipulating the situation. So what case of libel is there? I am sorry, but I do not believe that there is one. If you think that there is one, you should report it. Or else feel free to sue Wikipedia Review over it. Wikipedia Review takes legal threats seriously, as they are an important part of being a legally operating body, that functions within the bounds of a law abiding society. 203.122.231.19513:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. Assuming, for a moment, that the court document is accurate and does indeed refer to the person you're talking about, I fail to see what it has to do with any legitimate "criticism of Wikipedia". I did not say it represented a case of libel.--Eloquence14:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue was that someone was blocked from Wikipedia for presenting it, and then permabanned for presenting a complaint about the admin who blocked them for it. And yes, being unfairly banned like that is a criticism. You can nitpick about things all you like, but that's just not a good example of your point. That was a very legitimate criticism. It was also very relevant to discussion about that particular high ranking administrator, and should have been disclosed on Wikipedia. The details were proven without any doubt whatsoever. I would reprint it here, but of course Wikimedia has already said that they don't want such evidence presented here. 203.122.231.19520:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Eloquence, following your post above, I contacted you to request that Wikipedia Review be added to the blacklist because they were publishing material about me that I regard as defamatory, along with what they say is my real name. You asked that I contact the administrators of the website to request that they remove the material. I did that, and the (in my view, predictable) result is that they have published my request, along with what they believe is my real name, and have said they will not remove the material. I would therefore like to request that you remove your objection to the website being included on the blacklist. SlimVirgin(talk)01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I will not personally revert a renewed addition of WR to the blacklist, and I certainly agree that their stance with regard to removing postings is legally problematic from Wikimedia's point of view (i.e. we are linking to a resource which is promoting potentially libelous material and has not demonstrated due diligence in dealing with it). If we do use the blacklist for it, as I already said above, I think at the very least, this blacklist should be split into two lists (one for spam and one for sites which are blocked for other reasons), so that third parties aren't affected by these decisions (the Wikimedia list is used by default in any wiki which uses the spam blacklist extension).--Eloquence04:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge the archives
The archives for this page are split into /completed removals, /completed additions, and a generic /archive for everything else (with much overlapping). This makes it more effort to archive the page, since one must find the appropriate archive in the appropriate category for each section. If there is no opposition, I'll merge the archives together and standardise them in the same way I did at Talk:Interwiki map. The standardised system uses dated archives in the format [[/Archives/year/month]], with a topic listing at [[/Archives]] for much-simplified searching. See Talk:Interwiki map/Archives for an example of this. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to follow the suggestions of the "How to Start a WikiProject" and advertsing this new project on the talk pages of contributers to Anglican-related articles and on the major Anglican pages. Now I've been stopped in my tracks for spamming. What are the guidelines here? Am I supposed to advertise or not? Fishhead6406:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This site is wrongly blocked as spam. The same problem occurred, and was fixed, in March 2006 (is (?<![\./])logos\.com working correctly?). Croquant22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It should be (?<=[.\/]logos\.com) instead. ?<! is negative lookbehind, so it only matches if the previous character is not a . or /, instead of matching if the previous character is one (?<=). So it isn't even blocking the site is it supposed to. Kotepho09:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I came across a spam filter while editing w:en:Chrononhotonthologos due to it having a link to the above domain. It was suggested that this is because the link contains "logo & .com" (In spam filter: (?<![\./])logos\.com). Can this be worked around in the regex? Thanks Cleduc06:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It should be (?<=[.\/]logos\.com) instead. ?<! is negative lookbehind, so it only matches if the previous character is not a . or /, instead of matching if the previous character is one (?<=). So it isn't even blocking the site is it supposed to. Kotepho09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Done— already blacklisted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Done— added. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Not done— no further discussion, apparently not a sufficiently significant problem for blacklisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Not done— *.in.ua domains are typically throwaway domains, easily registered and discarded. Blacklisting them doesn't help, since they've already registered new domains by that point. The simplest way to deal with it is to simply revert; it's obvious vandalism. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
