Talk:Spam blacklist

Shortcut:
WM:SPAM

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

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

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

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

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

[edit]

snippet for logging: {{/request|856204#section_name}}

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

Spam that is only affecting a single project should go to that project's local blacklist, if available: ENWP

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 16 years ago39 comments10 people in discussion

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

biologicalworld.com

He is a site of only a few pages and a LOT of adsense. Not much information is given except for "protocols" which are not referenced, and cannot be trusted from a site of that quality.

check: Links from Wikipedia

biologicalworld.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

--82.169.41.246 12:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Already blacklisted this month on en.wikipedia:

I suspect the links on other Wikipedias may be due to article translations from en.wikipedia versions; that was the case, for instance, when I spot-checked the fr. and zh.wikipedias. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

pugliarooms.com

The following discussion is closed: added to blacklist

Cross wiki.

pugliarooms.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

IP's/users adding the link:

151.33.134.158:

bg.w, de.w, en.w, eo.w, fr.w, hu.w, id.w, nl.w, nn.w, pl.w, pt.w, simple.w, sr.w, tr.w, ur.w

151.33.133.240:

cs.w, de.w, et.w, io.w, lt.w, nn.w, ro.w, sr.w, sv.w

Diegolas79:

es.w

--Jorunn 16:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jorunn - Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jorunn, Herby, I can't understand why PugliaRooms was banned. It's a useful resource to find touristic services for all the terms (regions and cities) it was associated to (Apulia, Salento, Lecce, Brindisi). Other links even less relevant are still working in the same page pugliarooms' link was deleted. Even more, This site was born in 2007 from a project funded and powered by institution such as UE Regione Puglia, Chamber of Commerce and the Municipality of Lecce (POR Puglia 2000 - 2006 misura 5.3). Look at the site to check it out. Thanks in advance! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.33.131.26 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

However Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a travel guide - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Herby, I understand this. I just added pugliarooms' link where external links of other similar resources were. Just where external link section had been created. I can't understand why only this link was removed. Please really consider to remove this site from blacklist and unblock my ip...if i did a mistake it was made against my will, believe me! Thanks for your time, Herby! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.33.131.26 (talk) diff, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

"other similar resources" should be blacklisted too. PS your IP is not blocked--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank for your answer, nick! I did a mistake, now I know it, but i don't want the owner of the site to be blacklisted. I just wanted to help him! That's all! I hope the community understand this! Thank you! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.33.131.26 (talk) diff, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Spamlinks were added also under 151.33.131.26. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm really afraid for my mistake. I'm not a spammer, at all. And it' s the first time it happens.

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to requests from site-owners or others that have spammed them. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.

This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.

Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Related domain

teamtouring.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but everybody should be equal before the law, so you should blacklist also the other commercial sites still in the wiki pages you removed this link. I have a great consideration of your job, but i think that everybody should have a second chance. Have you never been wrong? ^_^ Thank you!

Well, I'd say I'm wrong about 30% of the time. Fortunately, Jorunn, Herby, Nick, and Spacebirdy are smarter than me. (... even if they weren't, 30% X 30% X 30% X 30% X 30% << 1% error rate)

There's a clear consensus your links should stay on the blacklist.

Just on the English Wikipedia alone, there were over 3 million links a year ago and I'd estimate a million were inappropriate. Most were added in good faith by regular editors, but probably several hundred thousand were spammed by site-owners. I put in a lot of volunteer hours trying to fix this but I just haven't gotten around to your competitors -- feel free to pitch in and help. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I just wanted to point out that pugliarooms.com is NOT a spamming site! The links in wiki pages were put just where other people could find useful (and even more, in the right place - external links - and for the right terms: apulia, salento, lecce, brindisi). Sorry but this is NOT spam. I think users should have judged about it, not a spambot (even human)... Anyway, thank for your time, I really appreciate your consideration about my objections and I have a great consideration for the service you give to the community. Bye! :)

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.33.134.125 (talk) diff, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 14:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

By proposing to add your link to this blacklist I did not mean to deem the website as spam. My only opinion is that the link was added excessively, it was added cross wiki, and that the website wasn't obvioulsy useful to the Wikimedia projects. The combination of those three factors made me propose the addition of your link.

The link was readded twice to the article en:Apulia after it had been removed. In en:Salento it was readded once after removal. Even though you didn't seem to get a warning on any talk page of your IPs, you probably noticed that the link was repeatedly removed by other users? The link was also readded after removal in hu:Salento and bs:Apulija.

You are right that there are lots of other links that shouldn't be in Wikipedia either. -Jorunn 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I found a warning given to you on nl:Overleg_gebruiker:151.33.134.158] while trying to find information about another spammed link. --Jorunn 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jorunn, since i'm a newbie on wikipedia (it was the first time i put something in), i clearly admitted more than on time i mede a great mistake. I just wanted to be useful for all these users looking for resouces about apulia and salento. I'm REALLY afraid for that and it wasn't my will to cause damage to the community. I saw the warnings but i inserted the link again because i really didn't understand why only pugliarooms' link was deleted while the other commercial sites could stay there. I thought that pugliarooms' competitors had deleted it so it seems to me an unfair behaviour. I hope you can understand my reasons. Thanks again! diegolas

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.33.133.34 (talk) diff, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 14:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is a problem that some persons are removing other links to better expose their own links, and it is a problem that some people constantly put their own link at the top of the list of links.That is part of the reason we can't keep links to for instance every tourist guide.

I understand your reasons. But I still don't think the website is useful to Wikipedia. If an established user asks for the link to be removed it will be considered. Thank you. --Jorunn 12:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done already, consensus to keep it on bl, the discussion is therefore closed. Thanks for Your understanding. --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 14:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jorunn, i just would like pugliarooms was unblacklist for a reason of evident good faith. It's a matter of corporate image. Please, i'm asking you just that. In google search you can find this site as "blacklisted". pugliarooms has institutionals partners and this starts to be seen in a wrong way. Please... You can say the website is not useful (i disagree cause the website gives also info about cultural and traditional events, but i respect your opinion) but punishing an entire corporation for an error of a newbie probably is too much.... Thank you guys for your answers.

thelolicon.com

Spamlinks added per spambot (index.php and other pages):

Please note that a lot of the spambot-created pages with these links were already deleted.
Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done & thanks for the work --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot Herby, the links he added so far will not be blocked though (because the syntax http:/... lacks a / ), but he will fix this maybe and try to spam the working link.

Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

musicserver.us

gallipolibedbreakfast.it

Cross wiki.

gallipolibedbreakfast.it

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Users adding the link:

--Jorunn 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

SEM Expertise spam on Wikipedia

Domains

canadaliving.org

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

douggilmour.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

semexpertise.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

tax-services.ca

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

localsearchcanada.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Google Adsense: 9924757078166935

Account

Limburgian, English and Korean -- an interesting mix.

After 18 months of spam cleanup, I have yet to see an en.wikipedia spammer from Canada spam fr.wikipedia. Somehow, that's a little depressing if you're not a separatist. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not of encyclopaedic value & Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

J. MICHAEL HEYNEN (HEYNEN ASSOCIATES)

\biccco\.org\b
\bpeace-diplomacy\.org\b
\bsynpolis\.org\b
\beufpc\.org\b
\bdiplomacy-advisory\.org\b

electojets.com and related

electojets.com, elect.awardspace.com/stepper/, 1lo.info/stepping Links to numerous examples are listed at [1] with more discussion at [2] 67.95.148.68 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

www.electojects.com/motors/ electojects.com/motors/ Is very relevant and useful website for related Wikipedia articles. I hope admins will take the right decision. Thank you.--Motos 19:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If this is solely an en wp issue please take the request to the local list thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

lyrikline.org

lyrikline.org

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Cross-wiki spam, see contribs for 62.96.74.70, spamsearch results and w:WT:WPSPAM#spam.lyrikline.org. 124.178.51.181 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

lyrikline.com and lyrikline.net redirect to lyrikline.org. best to add those also.--Hu12 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

myrize.org spam

Domains

\bmyrize\.org\b
\brizebilisim\.com\b
\brizeresimleri\.blogcu\.com\b
\brize-resimleri\.blogspot\.com\b
\brize\.fukuku\.com\b
\bcay\.fukuku\.com\b
\byoutube-seo\.blogspot\.com\b

Supporting data

myrize.org

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

rizebilisim.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

rizeresimleri.blogcu.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

rize-resimleri.blogspot.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

rize.fukuku.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

cay.fukuku.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

youtube-seo.blogspot.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Accounts

Reference

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Spam myrize.org (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Two unrelated URL redirect domains

Two URL redirect domains that were recently added as links to en:TinyURL:

tapp.it^[3]
sillyurl.com^[4]

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done --A. B. ^(talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

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

hungarybudapestguide.com + touristguide.gyuli.com

The following discussion is closed.

The hungarybudapestguide.com + touristguide.gyuli.com has been blacklisted, and I understand the blacklisting. The reason why the addresses were changed to hungarybudapestguide.com was that a new domain name was bought, and therefore I changed the old ones to the new address(there were no more links to touristguide.gyuli.com as the address was banned - if I remember correctly). I agree that I spammed Wikipedia with to many links, in the en:Hungary and en:Budapest category (in different languages), but it can also be seen that I have used it as a reference as well, and not for the purpose of spamming at all (see: en:Budapest#shopping, en:Saint Stephen's Basilica, no:Budapest and some others). I would ask for the blacklisting of hungarybudapestguide.com to be removed (the touristguide.gyuli.com can remain, anyway not using it), and I will not add the page any more as an external link, but it can be used as a reference when needed (that will only be in English and Norwegian, as they are the languages which I know how to use).

Background: Talk:Spam_blacklist#hungarybudapestguide.com_.2B_touristguide.gyuli.com

If this is not possible, I accept that and understand it, but if it could be possible to remove the blacklisting that would be very nice and I would be very grateful. If you should find that I abuse it, blacklist it again at once (but you will not experience that, so do not worry). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siggiboy81 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I removed the links from ca. 90 articles yesterday. Others had already removed the links from other articles. In many articles there were two of the links. In all there has probably been more than 200 of your links cross wiki. There were still touristguide.gyuli.com links in some wikis, and there still might be some in the smaller Wikipedias even though I have tried to find and remove all.

Local whitelisting can be sought on the wikis where the link is wanted. A local whitelisting will override this blacklist. For the English Wikipedia it can be done at en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. no.wikipedia doesn't seem to have a whitelist yet, but they can create one if needed.

Please read en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before you consider adding more of your links. Thanks. --Jorunn 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have written to the English whitelist, and I also sent an email to info-no@wikimedia.org about creating a Whitelist for the Norwegian Wikipedia. I thank you for the help and hope that my application for being whitelistened will be approved. Thanks for all the help! --Siggiboy81 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not done as whitelisting is being sought --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

szlemberk.xf.cz/

Completely legitimate site that I need to use as a reference and external link, I don't see why it is blacklisted.--24.64.124.27 16:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Found that [5], [6] in the archives, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't really explain anything, the site has very little advertising and contains useful information.--24.64.124.27 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It explains why it was added, the domain was often used for spamming links, it was a problem for cs.wiki but since there is now w:cs:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist a local whitelist, it is whitelisted there and they can use the links. If any other wiki wants to link they should add it to their local whitelist. Other opinions? Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess the toss up is whether to remove here & locally blacklist or to look at local whitelisting where needed. Blacklisting here is rather a severe measure if not fully warranted. Any other views? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

studentville.it

The following discussion is closed.

This is the most visited 100% free web site for italian students. It offers good free contenents in latin, literature, philosopy, math, etc. Some links according to me could be useful for wiki users.

Many links were added last year by a competitors with the aim to ban studentville.it from wikipedia.

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.

This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.

Italian Wikipedia whitelist requests can be made at it:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Declined per A. B.'s comments and the fact that the site is unencyclopaedic --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

suite101.com

The following discussion is closed.

The reasons provided to blacklist this site (blog provider not matching enwiki's reliability standards, enwiki link spam by one of its writers - Talk:Spam blacklist discussion, WikiProject Spam discussion) might have been valid when there was only one central blacklist, but now that enwiki has its own blacklist there is no reason to keep it up here, as other projects have different standards for reliability and external links. (Specifically, some of the stuff under psychic-abilities.suite101.com would be useful on huwiki -- and yes i know i could just whitelist it, but moving it to teh en: blacklist seems to be the more correct solution, as the blacklisting is based on enwiki-specific policies, and might hinder any number of other projects.) So please remove and notify the en: admins to readd it there if needed. --Tgr 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

My viewpoint:

There were many suite101.com links on other projects at the time it was blacklisted. See, for instance, de:Spezial:Beiträge/Orca66.
There was not just one suite101.com writer spamming these links but rather dozens.

Some more background (partial list):

May 2006:

en:Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/05#Registered users

December 2006:

January 2007:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#Whitelist requests: some of our old friends return for a visit

February 2007:

^†Note: there are 2 sections on this page that share the same name

March 2007:

April 2007:

I think some other projects may also not want this domain. Perhaps it would be best to just whitelist it at hu.wikipedia.

I was very involved with the incident when it broke out, so it would help to have someone more neutral handle this request from here.

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The suggestion of whitelisting where it is needed seems perfectly reasonable to me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Closed as Declined --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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

There is apparently a blacklisted link in Initial D Arcade Stage 4, im not sure which one it is and because of that link, I can't save any changes to the page. Can someone have a look? --DGhstLStRdP 20:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

DoneSomeone on en: has already edited out the block, see this (diff). xaosflux ^Talk 05:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

w:ru:Калужская область

I have problems with saving w:ru:Калужская область: При попытке сохранить:

Страница, которую вы пытаетесь сохранить, заблокирована спам-фильтром. Вероятнее всего она содержит ссылку на внешний сайт.

См. страницу m:Spam blacklist, содержащую полный список заблокированных сайтов. Если вы полагаете, что спам-фильтр блокирует редактирование ошибочно, пожалуйста, свяжитесь с администратором, либо оставьте запрос на странице обсуждения m:Talk:Spam blacklist.

Ниже показаны адреса, которые блокируются:

Следующее сообщение было получено от спам-фильтра: http://constitution.garant.ru

--Imz 23:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Same at w:ru:Кемеровская область.--Imz 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

garant.ru was added to the local ru.wikipedia blacklist today, and that entry blocks the constitution.garant.ru links. If you remove the link from the articles you will be able to save your edits. I've removed the link in the two articles you are linking to, but there seems to be more links in other articles. --Jorunn 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I'd like to note that the content on the linked pages seems to be very relevant to the subjects. I don't know why it was blocked; perhaps if someone who cares sees this discussion here he will be able to discuss this issue with those who are in control of the blacklist.--Imz 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rule in error

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As COIBot repeatedly crashed upon loading the regexes from the meta blacklist, I found that there was a rule with an error. The regex '\bweb\.archive\.org[^ ]{0,50}obsessedwithwrestling\.com' is incorrect, the first [ should be preceded by a \ (so '\bweb\.archive\.org\[^ ]{0,50}obsessedwithwrestling\.com'. Can someone have a look and (if necessary) repair? Thanks. --Beetstra 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Think I've fixed it - if not, let me know - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Syntax Error: This is a RegEx Error and produces a error in some regex routines (? Better correct it to (\?

in \zoofi the \ is needless

No, these are perl regex's. "(?" means that the term enclosed in the parentheses is to be matched case insensitively, whereas "(\?" would imply "preceded by a literal '?'". Similarly, "\zoofi" matches "oofi" at the end of a substring being checked, and "zoofi" instead matches the literal "zoofi". AmiDaniel 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK:

i used the list in a program with "Microsoft VBScript Regular Expressions" in VBScript.dll, and this caused a error by "(?". So i thought this is a general RegEx Error. And i thought that the spamwortcheck is principally case insensitive, and you wand finde the literal "?".

And i thought that you want finde "zoofil..", (it was in once the past like this in the list, without "\", if i remember correctly. "zoofil.." is a word for "se-x with a-nimals" and a typical spamword.)

thanks for responding —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.191.29.92 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, check the arguments and entries, some are baby correct. In "/zoofi..." is "/" definitely wrong.

Discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments13 people in discussion

Local blacklisting vs. global blacklisting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reset

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aphaia, right now, it seems like this list is running pretty smoothly without much admin effort. As for its maintenance, that doesn't seem to be much of a problem now. As for e-mails, I'm not an admin, but because I make so many requests here, I get them too. I just refer them back to this talk page, suggesting that they make their case here before a wider audience; I also make sure at least they get answer from me here if not from others. The admins that work on this list seem to have thick skins, are undeterred by complaints and are always willing to do the work. As for this list affecting many websites, you're right and that argument cuts both ways. This list also protects many web sites from known spammers.

In any event, what's the mechanism we're using for coordinating to ensure that spammers locally blacklisted in one place aren't spamming in another? Who's doing this work now? We must have a system in place to track this before we deprecate this list to use for proven cross-wiki spam only.

A useful parallel is the whole open proxy issue. For several years, different projects have battled open proxies separately resulting in a large duplication of effort. An open proxy blocked on fr.wikipedia (perhaps our best OP-fighters) would then be used by other spammers, vandals or POV-pushers to cause problems on nl.wikipedia or ja.wikibooks. Only now is there some convergence on a meta-level solution. Meanwhile, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction with spam. Meta has a critical role to play here, whether it's blacklisting globally or just tracking globally to catch cross-wiki spam. Either way, we must not abdicate our role and our responsibility (especially to the smaller wikis which have proven so vulnerable to spam). --A. B. ^(talk) 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's another time to blacklist at meta: links to blatant copyright violations. For example, when the domains associated with this discussion all finally get identified, they should probably be blacklisted here even if we only find it on one project. That's because these sites are all blatant violations of different magazines' copyrights; we can't afford to have links to these sites if we can help it. (See the discussion of "contributory infringement" at en:Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works and en:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). --A. B. ^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agree completely - I do think we need to hammer out some approach to Meta blacklisting policy probably by extended/clarifying this. For anyone new arriving here (Meta sysop or another project user) this page is frankly unhelpful. My time is under considerable pressure at present but I do see this as a high priority and any help will be appreciated.

We would be able to clarify cross wiki spamming as a concept, the fact that some site should probably be blocked at a Meta level anyway such as above or sites that may compromise machines etc. We can also make blocking url shorteners a policy for example --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Besides of all ... I eventually found this page: Spam blacklist policy discussion. Since this discussion is lengthy and it becomes clearer we need to have a global policy of inclusion for maintaining this page, are we better to move the discussion place? Or better to stay here? --Aphaia 22:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm for here, because if it's spam to one wiki odds are it's spam to most of them. Say, you have a marketing company that uses aggressive JavaScript, if each user on en.wiki who has been there complains, odds are it'll still be aggressive to fr.wiki. Yamakiri 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok - I agree with Yamakiri's point generally. If they spam one wiki they probably aren't useful to another one (& if they are whitelisting is an option).

However (& thanks Aphaia - I must have found that page in the past because I'd got it on my watchlist) we have Spam blacklist policy discussion & Spam blacklist/About and yet still no real clarity about policy or help for those who are not used to these pages be they admins or other users. My postings to both Foundation-l and the list for Meta met with nothing much so I guess it is up to us to hammer out guidelines policy etc. Until early October my time will be limited but I'll do what I can. I think it may well be worth a fresh start rather than trying to make changes to what we already have? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

My 2 cents. I'm sysop at 7 wikis. I would always use local blacklist (for instance, a spanish page isn't likely to be spammed on russian wiki), but if I see crosswiki spam as I JUST spot for [7], I'd come and global block. Local lists exist for a reason, and it's easier to keep track of. Global list should be used only when global blocking is needed. drini ^[es:]_[commons:] 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Beyond the 57 Wikipedias searched by Eagle 101's cross-wiki search tool, this blacklist is also relied on by 650+ other Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wiktionaries, other Wikipedias, etc.). So for Spanish projects, there are these additional targets for Spanish-only spammers for which we don't have much visibility unless someone manually runs a linksearch domain-by-domain, project-by-project:

That or if we're lucky and Luxo's x-wiki user search tool finds the spammer using the same IP or user name on other projects. (That tool is sometimes off-line; at other times it misses contributions on some wikis).

I think another, less important factor to consider is how non-Wikimedia sites might use a domain. All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. A site selling an obviously bogus get-rich-quick scheme or magnetic underpants as a cancer cure has no value to any of our projects nor to any of the 1000s of other wikis our blacklist affects. You might as well do everyone a favor and globally blacklist such a site even if it appears on just one Wikimedia project. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Picking up Drini's point, local blacklisting is great. However it is dependent on admins locally being

Aware of it
Understanding regex adequately
Being interested in the prevention of (inappropriate) external links

If any of those criteria are absent then so is local blacklisting effectively.

Equally on A. B.'s point, there are some sites that just aren't needed by the Foundation (or most other folk) such as the batch of adult sites I just added. In such a case it matters not whether they spammed one or many wikis they should be listed here not locally I think.

We do need a sharpening of policy (referred to above) which - when excess time is available! - I certainly aim to take a look at. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Coibot's monitor list is quite efficient at spotting crosswiki spam, however it requires that someone actually look at the reports and notice it (as I did with uarticles.blogspot.com, which was recently meta-blacklisted). It has a 'stalk page' feature which picks up domains added to watched pages using the spamlink template.. I imagine it could stalk the local mediawiki blacklist pages as well. I'm a bit reluctant to give it more tasks at this point as it and it's related linkwatchers are resource intensive, consuming about 2/3rds of the resources on a 4proc/4gig Sun Ultra80. --Versageek 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext

Hello all, I don't know if it is possible but it would be a nice feature to have 2 'MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext', one that shows up if the url is on the local MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist on a given wiki and one that is shown if the url is on the global one here at meta. Because as far as I saw many wikis gave a link to meta in the local MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext and now people are redirected here even even if the link is not blacklisted here but locally. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

bugzilla:12034 opened, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 11:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

We've been getting increased en: wiki reports here that are on their local blacklist. I've updated en:'s text to give more information on checking locally for now, though this would be a much better solution. xaosflux ^Talk 01:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank You for Your efforts. Though I saw that also other wikis are directing people here, so that it would still be usefull. I would love to see some activity at that bug, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

In general, I think the Mediawiki:Spamprotectiontext(s) should be more explanatory. Most wikis only provide a rough translation of the default message. Often users dont know what to do when they are prevented from saving a page - after all, they didn't add the link. And so, if they are only doing a minor edit they will probably just leave it and go on with something else. /NH 01:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Edit-summaries

Hello all, I am curiousif it is possible to have the spamblacklist block also edit summaries. Currently it does not block edit summaries (see [8] -> but [9]). This would be really a great feature since the spambots are concentrating on the summaries. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is it necessary? A url appears on an edit summary plainly, not as a link. It is less bothersome than spamming on the actual text. It may even be a convenient spam detector. Hillgentleman 06:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The bothersome thing about this is not the link itself, which is in fact not clickable, but the fact that spambots are messing up dozens of wikis, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe hard to believe but I am not really interested in the tools, only what I can do with them. One I would love is the ability to block open proxy spambots across all wikis! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

True. It may stop them for a while until they become more sophisticated. Hillgentleman 08:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

spamlink template

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

en:User:Shadow1 and I are working on the linkwatchers. At the moment we are running them on 722 wikis (which is 'all' by the count of about one and a half week ago). User:COIBot is watching these 722 wikis, and reports when a link is on its monitorlist (and those links are generally there when it is spammed, see the explanation on en:User:COIBot). On the english wikipedia we use a spamlink template for reporting external links, which directly links to a number of search engines, and to a number of reporting systems, including COIBot. Would the template be of interest here? --Beetstra 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

A link to the template would be useful? Getting reporting a little more consistent on here would make our lives a little easier too - it is not always clear what the extent of the problem is (nor sometimes the exact site name). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I created a version of that template here a few months ago: Template:Spamlink. It may need to be updated with the latest, greatest features - but it is here. --Versageek 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have updated the template to a more meta-like form. When you use '* {{spamlink|example.com}}' it displays the next line:

example.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

In order:

First what is in the template,
Linksearch for meta and the 5 big wikis (en, de, fr, en.wiktionary, fr.wiktionary, see Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size),
'LinkReport' is a report generated by an IRC bot by Betacommand, it is a save of a current linksearch on en.wikipedia.
'COIBot Linkreport' contains a summary of all use (by not-whitelisted users) on all 722 wikiprojects on Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size, since the moment of blacklisting/monitoring (see en:User:COIBot for more info).
Eagle's spam report search searches for reports on en.wikipedia spam archives, and here as well I think.
interwiki link search: 20 and 57 search in resp. the 20 and 57 biggest wikis.
LinkWatcher search searches in en:User:Shadow1's database (only en at the moment, probably at some time also for more/all wikipedia).
Wikipedia search searches for the existence of the page with the url name on en, de and fr.
google search searches for info on the site on google.
Veinors pages contain also link-addition information
domaintools gives info on the domain
AboutUs.org gives info on the domain
Yahoo backlinks, search engine results.

I guess it contains pretty much all the tools needed to investigate the link, latest additions and current use. Hope this helps. --Beetstra 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks good - we'll see how it goes as it gets used. Given the nature of it I'll probably semi protect it I think - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it is protected (or did you just do that?). --Beetstra 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way, to keep yourself more or less up to date, you can watchlist User:COIBot/LinkReports, that gets updated when COIBot saves a report (about every 5 minutes). It may get you one step ahead of a spammer (though take care interpreting the report, COIBot sometimes picks up links by mistake). --Beetstra 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Protection - yes (when I am around I am not generally slow!). As to watching (& for me) the honest answer at present is "no time" - I would consider myself pretty active on three wikis at least so I tend not be short of work. When I get time I will check it out and see what I can do - thanks for your work & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply