Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Nixeagle (talk | contribs) at 00:15, 1 February 2007 (→‎theoneworld.org: expand, and elaborate). It may differ significantly from the current version.
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. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, or Other discussions; 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.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|521726#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, it has probably been archived at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01.

Proposed additions

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.

dqsoft.com, dqfree.com

Per http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/10642#comment-60436 which was also discussed on WikiEN-l. DQsoft have been engaging, by their own frank admission, in a long-term spamming campaign. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think a meta-blacklist is in order Eagle 101 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

truegamesreviews.info

The ninth URL to a warez paysite, spammed into articles [1] [2] [3] [4] by one-use anons. Exterminate. --Kizor 12:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks like the IP's are on 3 seperate ranges, a link search turned up 4 more that I then removed. ([5] [6] [7] [8]) By the looks of this this may be a problem that can be addressed by the blacklist. There currently are 0 links in the English wikipedia to this site, (others I have not checked), the search to the english wiki can be done here. Hope this helps! Eagle 101 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business English Solutions International, LLC spam

Spammed numerous articles using several accounts, then made legal threats and personal attacks once links were reverted and accounts warned. Now -- a few weeks later, they're came back with a new account and reinserted a link.[9].

See en:User talk:71.201.181.10 for a list of articles spammed. Here are the user contribution histories:

Here are the domains to block: \.alternateroutestravel\.com
\.businessesi\.com
\.businessesi\.org
\.chinahearts\.com
\.chinaschoolreview\.org
\.chinatravelfacts\.com
\.eslfranchise\.com
\.esljobschina\.com
\.eslschoolreview\.com
\.journeyeast\.org
\.learnchinesenow\.net
\.studenttravelchina\.org
\.teach-and-travel\.org
\.AllthingsChina\.org
\.allthingschina\.com
\.ChinaVisaService\.org
\.eslz\.net
\.hunanteach\.com
\.journeywest\.org
\.TEFLjobs\.org
\.teach-in-Beijing\.com
\.teach-in-zhejiang\.org
\.z-visa\.com

Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

theoneworld.org

An anon is repeatedly recreating an article about his or her website. The initial attempt went to AfD at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One World Many Cultures and was deleted. Since then they have repeatedly overwritten the existing article w:One World Project. As the IP address changes frequently, blocks are not working.-Gadfium 05:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, does not look like this has any use on the english wikipedia, (as shown here, is linked 7 times, those can be modified to allow the pages to save with ease). A blacklist here to stop that IP would probably be of use at this point. I don't see where any harm would be done by a blacklisting. Eagle 101 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, you could simply protect the article. (a semi-protect, or if it is really bad, full-protect) for a few days or weeks. The IPs adding this are as follows, the link is to the diff of the IP, making the change:

Currently looks like the problem has been resolved for the time being using a semi-protection. Eagle 101 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals

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.

Zorpia

www.zorpia.com

Kindly remove Zorpia.com from the wikipedia blacklist. Zorpia is an excellent social networking site with many useful groups from around the world which afford people of diferent cultures to get to know each other better. Also thanks to Zorpia's unlimited photo sharing feature, users get to "see" other cultures as well.

I tried adding www.zorpia.com/group/karachi_scene to the Wikipedia Karachi page but i am getting an error message prompting me to request that www.zorpia.com be removed from the wikipedia blacklist first.

Please verify the above for yourself, and remove www.zorpia.com from your blacklist. I don't know why it was blacklisted.

Best Regards & thanks, Imran.

A Zorpia article was spammed to the English Wikipedia; it was sent to the Articles for Deletion process for deletion. In the course of searching Google for references to establish notability, we learned that the site was tied somehow spamming online drug sales -- see the AfD's talk page for details and links. --A. B. (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the IP address from which that request was posted, 203.130.9.1, is blacklisted by dsbl.org as an insecure single-stage relay. --A. B. (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesell

\.middlesell\.com

My name is Jared Fausnaught and I propose that this be removed from the Spam blacklist. I am one of the managers for Middlesell.com. Our website is not a spam site, it is a student portal. Please see for yourself.

Also, I would like to know why this was originally added here in the first place.

Regards, Jared

If you're bored, here are a few of many links you could peruse:
--A. B. (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kunstmarkt.com

Has been blocked upon a request saying that it were a commercial site (a lie), and there were too many links to it (too many being about 50) in the Wikipedia.

This is not a commercial site. It exists for more than a decade, and its content was always free, is free, and will remain free, as one of the makers told me. Unlike typical commercial news and newspaper portals, they never expire/delete their aticles. There is no comparable source (by size and depth of coverage) about art, artwork, artists, museums, exhibitions, etc. online in German language.

Imho, only about 50 links from the WP to a site having hundreds of thousends of free articles on paintings, artists, etc. etc. is really not too much. Disallowing such links completely, appears insane to me. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I agree with Purodha Blissenbach, in this case I strongly disagree. Kunstmarkt purpose is to sell art. The pictures there are not free, but under copyrights. It's a sad situatiion that we have such strong copyright-laws on photographs of art and I understand the problems wiki-contributers have. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a link-container, therfore kunstmarkt has to stay on the list. --Hedwig in Washington 09:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kunstmarkt.com does not sell art. They do sell advertizing space to art exhibitors, galleries, and the like. Of course what they publish is copyrighted, and free. This is the exact same situation of Wikipedia articles, which are copyrighted, and free. So where's the problem? --Purodha Blissenbach 10:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. even if they were selling art, what is the problem linking to one or another of their excellent artists bios, which are free, and granted to stay as long as the Website exists? --Purodha Blissenbach 10:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a 100% commercial site, that's what I say. I really have a big problem with commercial website that have 50 entries on one(!) Wikipedia. We do not provide advertising webspace. That's not what I'm working for. And you are a hardcore-wikipedian, you know how much crap is already in "our" articles. We need to maintain high standards, otherwise we'll be nothing else than myspace, ebay or the yellow pages. Regarding the bios, it's our work to write an article about an artist, not generating a stub in the Wikipedia and linking to external information that we should provide. --Hedwig in Washington 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on better having own quality articles in the Wikipedias than links. When there is no one (up to now) who writes such an article, or when there is another ressource having (a considerable amount of) material for further reading, an image galley, etc., then there is no point in not linking to it - wether or not the site offering it is considered commercial by some or not - as long as its content is free, reliable, and good. If we are not even ruling links out because target sites are doublessly commercial, such as http://mircosoft.com/ or http://ibm.com/ or http://daimler-chrysler.com/ , even less can we generally forbid links to pages which are non-commercial, or at best dispudely commercial sites. We DO provide advertizing space. Recently there was an advert of a record company to be found on the top of all pages of all wikimedia foundation supported wikies, alongside with an advert fo the Wikimedia Foundation. Also noone, or at least not me, would not put any blame on you, if you did not suggest http: /kunstmarkt.com/ pages for further or supplementary reading in articles authored by you. But your intent to disallow the same for all other authors of all Wikimedia wikies, based on personal prejudice as it appears to me, is counterproductive and detrimental to the value of Wikipedia as a ressource for free information. --Purodha Blissenbach 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is, that both of us try to improve quality. The microsoft/daimler/whatsoever-links are not good examples. That's different. Maybe you have a look on the DE-Wikipedia where I deleted all most of the kunstmarkt links. You'll see that most of the articles are stubs or better stubs. The people go the easy way and that's another point. You are right, prejudice is counterproductive, but how's free of that. My decision to ask for further blocking is based on WP:WEB, the articles where the link has been and the website kunstmarkt itself. I do not try to fight for an old decision I made to have look like I was right then. It's not that I want to harm the kuinstmarkt guys or Wikipedia. For Wikipedia I try to do all I can to make it a better one. --Hedwig in Washington 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the above arguments makes me regard this blocking even more questionable. You didn't only remove "most of the kunstmarkt links" - you deliberately cut off each and every editors freedom to insert such links in any of the wikimedia wikies. Removing links to (usable) external ressources from stub articles serves the purpose of excessively downgrading the use of such articles for everyone. Readers now do not even find wanted information elsewhere. Editors of little knowledge willing to improve the article are deprived easy access to some of the information they should need to know. Editors who did not have the ressources to make a better article, but want to keep a note for others, likely feel set back when their effords are being wasted, and maybe leave the Wiki again in frustration. As I said, I don't mind when such a link is removed when it became superfluous after a stub article evolved, and the place a link points to isn't offering additonal information any more. I do mind global blocking of a useful ressource for everyone on every wiki based upon no real ground. Blocking is a countermeasure to linkSPAMming, i.e. excessive and/or unrelated, likely automated, mass-insertion of links. It has to be a last-resort type of decision, because otherwise editors freedom would be hampered. With about 50 articles in a half million+ having links to pages of a specialized thematic website of comparable size (332600 pages according to Google) I think you cannot speak of masses of links, and you never sugested, these links were made automatically, for ill reasons, nor that they were totally useless. So removing the blackmailing and restoring editors choices is imho the only sensitive solution. --Purodha Blissenbach 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kunstmarkt.com is a news site. There is no organised spam from this site to be found. --88.76.209.112 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The total ammount of articles is not an argument to block or leave it alone. I would agree on the stub use, but the result will be that the stub stays a stub. There will be no effort to improve, that is what I've learned in the Wikipdia so far. Create a stub, slam a few links into it and forget it. That's how it goes. And the Internet is no the only source we can use, there are still books around! I really don't think that somebody will leave the Wikipedia if one website is blocked. Nobody who is interested in Wikipedia work would do that. Every(!) possible information from this site has to be in the article and not on external websites. There is no need to allow a website for selling art on the Wikipedias. I'm sorry for any hardship that may occure here or there, the greater good is the Wikipedia itself. We are running in circles. --Hedwig in Washington 07:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a website for selling art, even though Hedwig in Washington keeps repeating that. Even it it was, this is not a cause for blocking. The opinion, editors were lazy, is not a valid argument for blocking a web site. There is no proof of SPAMming, not even a potential for suspiction therof. All there is, is a personal prejudice of a single user, who, so it appears to me, wants to use the power of blacklisting as an educational measure against disliked editors. Let's suggest Hedwig in Washington to make articles better instead of calling for unjustified site blocks. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; this should be removed. The spam blacklist should be specifically for spamming, not a repository of every commercial site on the web. Commercial sites that aren't being spammed should be included or not included in the normal manner---by just editing the pages, or talking on talk pages if there's a disagreement. --Delirium 07:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few sites

#These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site\.
\.namebase\.org
wikipedia-watch\.org    
google-watch\.org       
cia-on-campus\.org      
\.scroogle\.org
yahoo-watch\.org

I came across an article with these external links that weren't links, then viewed the source to see why. They are listed as <nowiki>, and the Talk page has a discussion about them being here because they redirect. However, after clicking the links from an editing preview page, they don't redirect. Regardless of whether we agree with the content of the links, I don't see why they should be blacklisted, since the reason they're blacklisted is not (at least now) the case. Nathanm mn 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A news article reports that MSN Messenger is blocking www.scroogle.org. If true, could MSN be importing the spam blacklist? What are the liability implications for the Foundation if a domain is on this list that cannot accurately be described as spam? 216.60.70.68 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request denied (again) - same reasons as before. Raul654 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What reasons? The stated one on the Spam blacklist is wrong. They don't redirect requests from Wikimedia, I tested it. Nathanm mn 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, please be aware that any link to these sites on enwiki would be immediately reverted, and any editor repeatedly inserting or re-inserting them would be blocked from editing and most likely permanently banned. This is per ArbCom ruling. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they still blacklisted though, when they no longer redirect? And technically, they are not spam. --Majorly 14:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. Ashibaka 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, there's an ArbCom ruling to censor these links because they disagree with the content? That's what it sounds like to me at least. Nathanm mn 08:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real reason is that Raul654 thinks I am in the business of stalking young children, but this is false and malicious and therefore libelous. I've never seen any evidence that there was an Arbcom statement on this topic. There is now a page at wikipedia-watch.org/raul654.html that places the blame entirely on Raul. If Arbcom is involved, and someone can provide a citation, I'll be happy to expand that page. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.71.100 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very droll. The real reason is that the arbitration committee on en: has ruled that linking to any site which "outs" the real identity of Wikipedia editors, or which contains personal attacks on editors, is a blockable offence. It is my understanding that mr. Brandt wants nothing to do with us, and the feeling is certainly reciprocated. Just zis Guy, you know? 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the outing of Wikipedia editors is illegal, Wikipedia or the individual editors can take legal action. If it is not illegal, there is no reason to block links to his site. Even if we dislike him, giving the appearance of censorship on Wikipedia means he wins. If the redirection thing occurs again, then next to the text links there should be an explanation of why there are no "normal "links. It sure looked like censorship to me, and I'm a Wikipedia fan. -Alexbobp
I agree completely. If an editor's been "outed" on his site, alert them to that fact and let them take action on their own. It's not a reasonable justification for censorship. Nathanm mn 05:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hkmrr.hk.ohost.de/rundbrief.htm

Used in de:Rainer Riehn. Can't see what's wrong with that page, seems to be an application form to a reliable newsletter. --85.180.179.248 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ohost.de is being used by spammers as well. You might try whitelisting on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Diskussion:Spam-whitelist. (No decision yet, if another admin does want to remove this from the blacklist, they have my blessing) - Andre Engels 11:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


TVRage.com

I requested this a couple months ago to be removed from the Blacklist.[10] I thought the original request was laughable and unfair.[11]. His response was "Spammed on a daily basis to lots of articles, its owner has also admited to spamming it." It was spammed? All articles with links to the site were completely relevant, and had just as much right to be in the article as the TV.com links. I thought the purpose of the lniks were to add other sites that gave more about it's subject. Just because TVRage was an article that has been deleted off of Wikipedia (something I disagreed at the time, but now that I understand the policies more clearly see that the site wasn't notable, and didn't meet en:WP:Web. I don't think that should decide whether or not the site is a "spam" site or not. The links weren't added on a daily basis. To "lots of articles"? So? Unless they were irrelevent, I don't see a big issue that couldn't be discussed on the Talk Page. The "owner admitted spamming it"? Um, that guy wasn't an owner. He was just affiliated with the site. Right here- h t t p : / / t v r a g e . c o m / p r o f i l e s / J o h n Q . P u b l i c / b l o g s / ? v t i m e = 2 0 0 6 1 1 2 2 (remove spaces) you can see that he left. He was shortly banned from Wiki, and is no longer associated with the site. I see no issue with him. This site isn't constantly spammed. I admit to adding a couple links to sites with no links at all, so I thought it could improve the article at anycase. (I discuss on Talk Pages now when it comes down to External Links). I really want the opinions of others, not a simple "REJECTED" See here where it was requested. I have see where it was. I read it. Links to two articles where an indef. blocked user spammed isn't a very good excuse. --Linalu24 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with you that TvRage should be removed from the blacklist or added to the whitelist (either way the result would be the same). But to add to your argument, you should indicate specific articles that would benefit from information from TvRage. Also a TvRage article should now be created seeing as how TvRage has been climbing in web traffic rank according to its alexa listing (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=tvrage.com). 129.7.254.33 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linalu, I think a better place to rehash a dispute that occured on particular Wikipedia is to take it back to that Wikipedia. I suggest you open the discussion at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam and get consensus there. Also, in a previous post, you mentioned you were active on some other Wikipedias? You might have people on those other Wikipedias leave comments on your other user talk pages, then include those talk page links en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam remarks. --A. B. (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your responses. I'll definately look at the WikiProject Spam page. --Linalu24 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.myspace.com

Having trouble seeing how this is considered spam, but it's been recently added to the list, despite being pretty widly used (mostly on en.wikipedia) This site has a large number of user including a substancial number of musicians whose postings here had previouslly made it possible to link to copyrighted matrial this site had direct posting from the origional copyright owners and such was not a violation. There may have been a little spam from some, but the benifits that come from blacklisting this site are vastly outweighed by the problems that are caused... -- (sorry, no username on meta)

I agree. Many celebrities, especially musicians, maintain MySpace pages and blogs, and the English Wikipedia, at least, allows these blogs to be used as sources. --Maxamegalon2000 02:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm now unable to revert vandalism on any page that has a link to a MySpace blog without either going at it one section at a time or deleting the link, and deleting the link would itself be considered vandalism. I'd definitely like to see this hostname removed from the filters. --Psiphiorg (en.wikipedia.org) 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the usefulnes of this site in general, and I'm not aware of any SPAM using it. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment at his talk page. A small discussion has ensued, but he hasn't commented yet. --Maxamegalon2000 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this will mark the first time I disagree with Jimbo on something. MySpace blogs are very useful because they can be first-hand sources from many famous people (who have official MySpace pages). Will someone please whitelist this? --Liface 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently link articles in en:wikipedia:
  • current list of articles that include the link *.blogs.myspace.com -- 1 link
  • current list of articles that include the link *.blogs.myspace.com -- 201 links
Here's the breakdown:
  • 5 links in 5 Image pages
  • 42 links in 42 Article talk pages
  • 19 in 17 User talk pages
  • 42 in 40 User pages
  • 1 in a Wikipedia talk page
  • 49 in 45 Wikipedia pages
    • 9 links in old articles for creation requests
    • 32 links in AfD or VfD pages and logs
    • 8 links in other Wikipedia
  • 52 in 43 Article pages
--A. B. (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the list on a user subpage: en:User:A. B./Sandbox9 to give people a sense of the kinds of linked articles and the quality of the links. It can also serve as a clean-up list. --A. B. (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a discussion about this at WP:Reliable Sources I've like to see this removed from the blacklist. If the authenticity of the MySpace owner is verified, I don't see why this can't be used as citations - 60.240.174.126 10:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is a final decision then as not only has it been blacklisted the link has just been deleted from Eat Static breaking the reference it was part of which was to a blog on an official MySpace by a recognised authority (band member) - which is normally allowed by policy. I only found out it was blacklisted when I tried to restore it.82.41.98.219 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at some of the MySpace blog citations Wizardry Dragon has been indiscriminately removing from articles even though their authenticity has been verified. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and there's a lot more if you look at his contributions. - 60.240.174.126 02:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardry Dragon has done the same thing to Feeder regarding a MySpaceblog that is the only way to back up the fact that the band raised 62,000 pounds at their gigs for the charity WarChild. I tried to re-add the link but he's blocked it and is definetly vandalism.

Marcus Bowen 12:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted an edit to the Lance Bass article that included a link to a MySpace blog as a citation, but I had to remove the link and just include the URL as text. I suppose until this site is removed from the blacklist, this is what we will have to do in order to properly cite our sources. --Psiphiorg (en.wikipedia.org) 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand why official sources are being blacklisted, this must be the single stupidest thing that I have ever seen Wikipedia do. Very confused and disappointed. --210.10.183.24 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This a real pain in the ass. If you want to block MySpace images from getting inserted, then blacklist viewmorepics.myspace.com , and not blogs.myspace.com24.52.190.122 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just tried editing the Kirk Cameron and Julie McCullough articles, in particular the portions that deal with how the former had the latter fired from Growing Pains, which had a citation tag on it. I wanted to add a source so that I could remove the tag, and since McCullough discusses the matter on her MySpace page, I added a bit of material, and the source, but it got automatically reverted. I don't see why this should be so, and I'd like to know what Jimbo's reasoning is on this matter. And as far as reliable sources, well, I would think that McCullough herself is a pretty reliable souce on the matter. 67.82.110.48 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


awardspace.com

A whole hosting provider is blacklisted and it has some useful websites hosted on it (for example, adventurelt.awardspace.com, which is a Lithuanian website on adventure games with a database of such games and could not be linked to from Lithuanian wikipedia as of now due to this restriction; the issue was already raised in the Lithuanian wikipedia, 1). If there are spam websites hosted on awardspace, they should be blacklisted separately instead of blacklisting whole awardspace. Lietwiki 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the discussion on that page, could you give a link to the specific version of the page? - Andre Engels 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to include the link as a source: [19] (see where "]" is added), the person who added it asks why it does not show up (in the comment of the edit). In [20] another person asks why is it impossible to link to sources because of the anti-spam filter. Later I did explain them more about how the anti-spam filter works and, as I do also disagree with the blacklisting of "awardspace.com" for the reasons specified above, I asked here to remove it from blacklist. Lietwiki 11:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
awardspace.com has been removed. - Andre Engels 10:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fremderfreiheitsschacht.de

It's a association for people of handicrafts. Nothing else. Why is it on the blacklist? 85.2.29.76 07:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was being repeatedly added to multiple pages on the German Wikipedia. See the contributions of de:Benutzer:85.176.182.162, de:Benutzer:85.176.154.161 and de:Benutzer:85.176.155.214. - Andre Engels 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.mypace.com/eliroth

I've been using this link on the page for Hostel Part 2 since June 2006 without incident. I understand that myspace or myspace blog links may be irrelevant in a lot of cases but I think in this case, the director's blog on his official myspace is a reliable source.

66.32.119.27 20:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Seelie at wikipedia[reply]

www.ohs.150m.com

This is the legitimate home page of a legitimate high school. I don't know why it's blocked, maybe an issue with the hosting service, but I haven't been able to complete my edits to the school's wiki article because it contains a link to the school's website, which is a most necessary external link. Oknazevad 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (sorry, didn't realize I wasn't logged in the first time.)[reply]

Because of edits like this one, 150m.com has been blacklisted. I haven't made a decision yet - I'll get back to this later if noone else beats me to it. - Andre Engels 13:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


iyisozluk.com

Hello my site (iyisozluk.com) is now black list.This site is online Multi language dictionary turkish from other 12 language therefor I'm adding my link to 3 article (dictionary,turkish,turkey) all wiki country sites. I thing this very much links for wikimedia. What can I do now for my site ?

Sory my bad english

And Thanks ...

www.w9rh.org

Please unblock www . w9rh . org . I have an article that links to referenced material using citeweb. It worked earlier today, subsequent edits not even concerning this URL now return blocked. I don't know why it was blocked but the site is legit 209.225.111.86 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) User:Anonym1ty[reply]

Should work now. --.anaconda 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.chiquitania.com

Please unblock this site. It is a non-profit, non-commercial site that exists only as an online resource for information regarding the Chiquitania, a geographic region of eastern Bolivia. I am trying to submit an article on this same region (none exists as yet on Wikipedia), and the Web site referred to is an invaluable source for further information. Thanks. --User ID: 3303832 11:47, 20 January 2007 (CST)

It looks as if this was a problem on the Dutch Wikipedia with a Dutch tour operator spamming links to the chiquitania.com's links page. This happened after his own company's link was blacklisted as persistent spam. His company has a link on that chiquitania.com links page. See Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01#chiquitania.com. If the link is not removed from the blacklist here, you can probably get it whitelisted on the English Wikipedia only at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Other language Wikipedias have similar provisions for whitelisting as well. --A. B. (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mojeosiedle.pl

Dunno if this is considered 'widespread' but... The address above is a Polish site hosting various forums focused around different local communities in Polish cities of Tró)jmiasto (Tricity. The tagline on some of those reads: "Talk to your neighbour without leaving home.")

Link additions by:

Since some of those edits came from one IPS, we blocked the whole subnet, pending addition to the blacklist. --TOR 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suite101.com

Some of the writers in some of the topics on Suite101 have legitimate reasons to be cited. For example, one long gone movie columnist actually interviewed legit pros, and I published the only article on Loblaw's w:Sesame Beginnings licensing after Sesame Workshop issued a press release. I agree that yes, a lot of the time people post on Wikipedia only to drive traffic to the Suite's payment-per-2000-views structure. However, there are some legit writers there that don't do that, and let other Wikipedians link to their content. -- Zanimum 19:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An additional information: we changed our writer payment model as of January 24, 2007. Writers do not directly benefit from page impressions in the future, (see Suite101's recruitment and payment terms) which was cited as one of the chief reasons when we were blacklisted. Bergerpeter 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the following for historical background on Suite101.com and its relationship to Wikipedia.
I copied the following from http:// www. suite101.com/writer_faq as of today:
"How long will it take before I start to earn money as a freelance writer?"
"You start earning and accruing money right away, but how much depends on many factors including the rate at which you post new content, the quality of the articles, the aptness of your titles, the amount of promotion you do, the speed at which the search engines index and rank you... but you are paid your share of ad revenues on your material, in full, monthly."
--A. B. (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really see no reason why Suite101 should be on the blacklist. The site is editorially controlled, reliable, and Wikipedia contributors acknowlege the referential value of many of its articles again and again. Our writers do get paid, and I believe that is appropriate for quality writing. If I understand correctly, Wikipedia is now adding rel="nofollow" tags to all external links (which I think is a great decision); that removes any incentive for people to abuse Wikipedia for search engine reasons. When Wikipedia contributors base their Wikipedia articles on Suite101 content, I strongly feel they should be able to refer to the original source of reference. Bergerpeter 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a debate about possibly reversing the nofollow decision in the future, perhaps in several months after the current large SEO contest. It's unclear where that discussion's going. Jimbo Wales has caught flack from many editors about this decision both from outside and inside Wikipedia (personally I support his decision). --A. B. (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our site is an editorially monitored writer network. Suite101 has tens of thousands of unique articles and currently 250 active Feature Writers. There has been no systematic spamming other than a few of our writers inserting links to their own articles. This has been solved and those writers won't do it again, since it was done in ignorance. The idea of the spam blacklist is to keep off persistent link spammers, not references to highly useful material or to ban sites that earn money and share revenues with writers; it would only be fair and in the interest of Wikipedia's rules to remove suite101.com from the spam blacklist. Bergerpeter 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rex curry dot net

Can this be removed from the black list [22], I am trying to utilise it and cannot for an article on Dr. Rex Curry. Thanks. 62.25.106.209 09:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems

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).

artnet.de

please unblock (first of all all magazine-articles): artnet sometimes has excess value, e.g. artnet.de/magazine/features/brauneis/brauneis06-30-06.asp -> great article & songs from the artist. there is no reason to block such an interesting page..!?!! 138.246.7.114 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Partially done. I have restricted the block to only artnet.de/artist - Andre Engels 11:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because there is sometimes between all the ads maybe an information? That doesn't make sense. --Hedwig in Washington 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it blocks the pages that were spammed before, and not the one that is mentioned here. - Andre Engels 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I obey whatever the META Admins decide! I checked that link and it seems to make sense! 8-))) --Hedwig in Washington 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sledtv.org

Was curious as to what happened to the sledtv.org site, then i saw that it had been blacklisted, did a little poking around and never saw any removals but one and no infractions, warings etc, why was this blacklisted? I believe it should not be, and should be reversed

It was blocked as being one of a series of URLs, added by the same spammer from different IPs. Examples given were [23] and [24]. - Andre Engels 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rake Yohn

I was trying to revert a lot of vandalism on the Rake Yohn wikipedia page and I keep getting the spam blacklist thing. What's going on? --164.82.144.3 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://ibtimes.com

Chronic spamming by en:User:Dck7777, en:User:Wog7777, and a bit by en:User:70.18.40.105. Total 118 contributions, all linkspam, all took forever and a day to cleanup: after reviewing, every link that proceded pattern http://ibtimes... was linkspam, and has been removed: [25]. However, link with pattern http://www.ibtimes has quite a few valid links: [26]. I'm thinking it likely has something to do with how the link is placed to viewers on the outside vs. how they see them internally. Perhaps you could simply block http://ibtimes: it might be enough to slow the spammer down. -Patstuart 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to not be working. I ran a test page, and didn't get any problems: what's more, there were two more spammers added to the list of socks. All come from New York City. Patstuart 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:Reparative therapy

I just tried to edit [27] and got the following:

Spam protection filter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.
You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the Spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to allow a particular link without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the Spam whitelist talk page.
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://blog DOT myspace DOT com
Return to Main Page.
(Note that in the above, I had to change the URL of the blacklisted text so I could post it here) After, I tried searching the text and found nothing. I copied all the text to my word processor, searched, found nothing. Please help. Thank you! Joie de Vivre 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found the links and "broke" them -- the page is editable now. --A. B. (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Is this something that I, a standard editor, can do or learn to do? Joie de Vivre 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure -- Look at what I did. I just made sure there was not a complete, uninterrupted URL. I got rid of the http://www. part.
Alternately, you could just put a spaces after the http:// and the www; a human can still interpret the link but browsers and MediaWiki software can't:
  • http:// www .myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=7428306&Mytoken=20050611060821
Blacklisted links often aren't very useful -- in such a case, just delete the link. I did not have the time to evaluate these links; we're less picky about link quality on talk pages. --A. B. (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSS code causing a hit

I recently tried to submit an error to w:Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. As the error resulted in a fair amount of exception code, I posted this along with the report in case they needed it. To avoid cluttering up the page, I put it in an overflow section. However when I submitted it, the filter blocked it with the text cited being "overflow: auto; " and "height:" joined together (obviously I couldn't put it together as it would also trigger the filter. Surely this cannot be. Harryboyles 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See bug #8829. --.anaconda 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussions

QUESTION

I just did an edit to a page -- and was informed that it could not be posted because there was supposedly a blacklisted link. I had not added ANY links in my minor edit, and the link specified did not show up anywhere on the page when I searched for it. What's the problem ?? Davilance 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This means that this article already contains a blacklisted link. To be able to save this page, you'll have to remove that link. Actually, MediaWiki tell you which link triggered the spam filter along with error message: The following text is what triggered our spam filter: blah blah blah. MaxSem 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

Should there be duplications on the list? --HappyCamper 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No... whats the duplication? J.smith 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention of trouble by a banned user

On eN WikipediA, we have a very notorious troublemaker by the name of Lightbringer. One of his MOs is to add utterly unreliable and defective "sources" and external links to the articels he attacks. While this isn't "spamming by multiple sources", would some of the more egregious ones be allowed to be blacklisted? As above, there's no reason to link to these servers from any articel as they're all fringe conspiracy theories. 68.39.174.238 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. Why not submit them and we can review them one at a time? J.smith 17:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above, #freemasonrywatch.org. 68.39.174.238 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

I'm having a problem reverting a vandalism due to this filter (see [28]). --141.158.218.244 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_nicknames_of_European_Royalty_and_Nobility

I tried to add a link to the 'List of Treaty Titles for Monarchs' page on this page, but the update failed due to a link I didn't include (to an elzibethtudor site) how should I address the 'blacklisting after linking' that apparently happened, and how do I get my link added? I'm user Bo on wikipedia.

Depending on the nature of the link you can:
  • Remove the offending link
  • Replace the offending link by a URL in text
  • Ask on your Wikipedia for whitelisting or here for removal from the blacklist.
- Andre Engels 13:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove from black list

List of Nicknames of European Royalty and Nobility G-I. Thanks.

Robert Saxon

This page can't be edited - but I'm not clever enough to work out why. Suggest it be removed from blacklisting - all I wanted to do was add a flag to say that it looked like a fan site and needed attention. Thanks Testbed 10:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)testbed[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=521726"