Talk:Spam blacklist
- Proposed additions
- Please provide evidence of spamming on several wikis. Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist. Exceptions include malicious domains and URL redirector/shortener services. Please follow this format. Please check back after submitting your report, there could be questions regarding your request.
- Proposed removals
- Please check our list of requests which repeatedly get declined. 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 value in support of our projects. Please consider whether requesting whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use is more appropriate - that is very often the case.
- Other discussion
- Troubleshooting and problems - If there is an error in the blacklist (i.e. a regex error) which is causing problems, please raise the issue here.
- Discussion - Meta-discussion concerning the operation of the blacklist and related pages, and communication among the spam blacklist team.
- #wikimedia-external-linksconnect - Real-time IRC chat for co-ordination of activities related to maintenance of the blacklist.
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. This leaves a signature and timestamp so conversations are easier to follow.
Completed requests are marked as {{added}}/{{removed}} or {{declined}}, and are generally archived (search) quickly. Additions and removals are logged.
- 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
- snippet for logging
- {{sbl-log|3475016#{{subst:anchorencode:SectionNameHere}}}}
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 (example.com, not http://www.example.com). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived. |
Google redirect spam
Note : This section won't be automatically archived by the bot
google.com
Specifically 'google.com/url?'
Explanation:
- search a document with google: http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=Public+Law+105-298&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
The first result reads:
[PDF]Public Law 105-298
www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl105-298.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
PUBLIC LAW 105–298—OCT. 27, 1998. Public Law 105–298. 105th Congress. An
Act. To amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, with respect to ...
If you right-click on the bolded name of the first result (on 'Public Law 105-298'), and copy the url, you get:
- http:// www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=public%20law%20105-298&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.copyright.gov%2Flegislation%2Fpl105-298.pdf&ei=vmahTvikEoib-gadiZGuBQ&usg=AFQjCNH95AzJoEKz83KrtpLkLXENeJ3Njw&sig2=I_64kGBITluwmGNvw619Cg
Which is how these URL's end up here, and which can be used to circumvent the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. I am afraid this will annoy people. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Should have noted:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=456671911&oldid=456669797
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=next&oldid=456671911
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=next&oldid=456672048
(which are all three meta blacklisted sites). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- (unarchived)
- I need some help here, please. This is apparently a problem for all tld's of google. See en:WT:EL#Google_redirection_URLs.
- 'google.*?\/url\?' ??
- --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- maybe this is a bug in the extension? "redtube.com" was a part of the url you tested here. -- 86.159.93.124 17:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC) (seth, not logged in) -- seth 20:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is what also occurred to me .. anyway it needs blocking as redirect sites should not be used - even when the target is not blacklisted (yet). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's better to allow this "spam" rather than annoy a lot of people. Unless an explicit error message can be printed, this is a bad filter that will trip a lot of users. See w:Wikipedia:ANI#Google blacklisted. Have mörser, will travel 18:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- It would be better if a bot rewrote those urls instead. Have mörser, will travel 18:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would have to agree it is a major loophole just waiting to be exploited, and should remain blacklisted. Δ 18:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- en:WP:BEANS. And blacklisting Google is going to really screw with lots of pages. Unlist. - The Bushranger 19:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please unlist this. This is using an axe to solve a problem that needs a scalpel. There must be ways to solve this problem, such as using edit filters, bots, or other methods than the spamblacklist. The spamblacklist should be used only for unambiguous cases where the site should always and without exception be never used. That sometimes, someone may use this method for abuse doesn't mean that every use of Google (or even most) will, and this is likely to generate more problems than it will solve. Please undo this and consider alternate means of addressing this problem. This is a real problem, and it needs to be fixed, but this solution is not a reasonable one. --Jayron32 21:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- This was grossly disproportional to the scope of the problem, and should be reversed. Georgewilliamherbert 00:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Undo this as soon as possible it is making pages impossible to edit. Highly frustrating - even when you find out what the problem is it is ridiculously time consuming to try to find the offending link when editing a long page. When you don't know about the blacklisting of google you have no chance at all. Bad decision.Maunus 01:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- While this sounds good on paper it doesn't work out --Guerillero 02:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - A bot request just had a 7 day trial approved to handle the offending URLs (see en:WP:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 58). Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note the bot is enwiki only. Anomie 03:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Guys, calm down. This is blocking a very small number of links (a couple of hundreds), not the whole of Google. Many regular editors are NOT going to include these links. Normal google links do NOT include the /url? part, there is no need to link there, and like with the other google loophole (which was abused), this is waiting to be abused (if it has not yet been abused). This is not 'making pages impossible to edit' - it makes it impossible to ADD a link, this is not 'screw[ing] with lots of pages' (as I said, just a couple of hundred), bots can't solve this (if it is used to circumvent blacklisting, then the bot can't repair the link anyway), etc. etc. Have a look at what I have been suggesting and what the problem actually is before making such sweeping comments. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I already realized that you were not blocking all of Google. I made my above objections fulling knowing the exact scope of this blacklisting, and still stand by the fact that this solution is overkill and causes more problems than it solves. I will concur that this eliminates the problem you note. It is not, however, a proper solution in that it also prevents good uses of the google.com/url linking. There are perfectly valid methods to stop this abuse, as noted above someone is already working out a bot solution. The issue here, Beetstra, isn't that you have solved a problem, its that you have refused to consider alternate solutions which could have far less collateral damage. Your attitude of "I have done this, and you all have to just live with the negative consequences because that's that" isn't terribly helpful. People here have suggested, and are working on, a way to fix this problem in softer ways, and it would be beneficial to try these before merely deciding that your solution is final and cannot be reconsidered, merely because you decided to do it. --Jayron32 15:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- What, exactly, would be an example of "good uses of the google.com/url linking"? Anomie 20:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a quick note, there's really no "good uses" - any use of this link can be seamlessly replaced by a link to the target URL. I don't believe it's been used for any significant amount of use to avoid the blacklist, but that isn't my major concern - having these URLs as external links means that any time a reader follows them, we're handing off some amount of their reading history to Google, which is a definite contravention of the spirit of the privacy policy if not the letter of it. Shimgray 21:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Jayron32 - that is a pretty blunt statement that you make. You blatantly say that I did not consider other methods of stopping this. First, there is no single reason why to link to a google/url? link. They are redirects, you can link to the real link. Your argument is just saying that there are also good reasons to link to bit.ly or any other redirect site - there is NONE.
- Regarding other solutions, I considered:
- The AbuseFilter - which clearly should be cross-wiki one, since this is a cross-wiki issue
- Flagging only - as if a spammer would care, they just save (but well, at least people may notice)
- Blocking - which is just the same as the blacklist.
- XLinkBot - currently only activated for en.wikipedia.
- The AbuseFilter - which clearly should be cross-wiki one, since this is a cross-wiki issue
- But as I said elsewhere and here again - this simply should never be linked, there is never a reason. And what other solutions did you have in mind? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I already realized that you were not blocking all of Google. I made my above objections fulling knowing the exact scope of this blacklisting, and still stand by the fact that this solution is overkill and causes more problems than it solves. I will concur that this eliminates the problem you note. It is not, however, a proper solution in that it also prevents good uses of the google.com/url linking. There are perfectly valid methods to stop this abuse, as noted above someone is already working out a bot solution. The issue here, Beetstra, isn't that you have solved a problem, its that you have refused to consider alternate solutions which could have far less collateral damage. Your attitude of "I have done this, and you all have to just live with the negative consequences because that's that" isn't terribly helpful. People here have suggested, and are working on, a way to fix this problem in softer ways, and it would be beneficial to try these before merely deciding that your solution is final and cannot be reconsidered, merely because you decided to do it. --Jayron32 15:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) Concur with blacklist, my only suggestion if it's a real problem to user is lift the block for a short time to give time for bots to be readied for all projects. I'm not sure but it sounds like some people may be confused. For clarity Google is not blacklisted. You can still link to google.com itself or google search results like [1]. What is blacklisted is www.google.com/url? . The reason is because this functions as a redirect. I can't see any reason why they should ever be on wikipedia (they are simple redirects, they don't allow you to view the cache or something if the page is down), they mostly happen by accident when people copy the links of Google search results. They add another point of failure (Google) and also may lead to confusion (people thinking the site they're going to is Google and so trustworthy, see for example the previous mentioned search results) and also mean people are forced to go through Google to visit the external link (allowing Google to collect their data). However as made clear here, the primary reason they were blocked is because they can be abused, as anyone can use them to link to spam sites overiding the blacklist. Nil Einne 07:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Unarchived again. Still needs to be solved. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I am going to change the rule to 'google\.[^?#]*\/url\?'. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Needed to use '\bgoogle\..*?\/url\?' - '\bgoogle\.[^?#]*\/url\?' was not accepted by the blacklist. Testing if other Google links still work: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Google+Arbitrary+URL+Redirect+Vulnerability. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Try '\bgoogle\.[^?\x23]*\/url\?', it's choking on trying to interpret the literal "#" character as the start of a comment. But escaped it works fine on my local test installation of MediaWiki. Note that '\bgoogle\..*?\/url\?' will block a URL like http://www.google.com/search?q=Google+/url?+Redirect, as unlikely as that is to occur. Anomie 14:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi!
- what about
\bgoogle\.[a-z]{2,4}/url\?? -- seth 16:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)- That wouldn't catch domains like google.com.au, or paths like http://www.google.com/m/url?.... Anomie 17:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- hmm, ok. So which urls have to be blocked exactly? What is this google.com/m/-thing? If these were the only exceptions
\bgoogle(?:\.com)?\.[a-z]{2,4}(?:/m)?/url\?would do. - The Abuse Filter could be a helping compromise, but it still can't be used globally, am I right? Did anybody open a ticket at bugzilla already? -- seth 20:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- hmm, ok. So which urls have to be blocked exactly? What is this google.com/m/-thing? If these were the only exceptions
- Basically, what needs to be caught are all google urls (all tlds) where the path ends in /url? - the normal form would hence be 'google.com/url?', but also 'google.com.au', and 'google.at/url?' - and long forms are e.g 'google.<tld>/archivesearch/url?' For a full list of links that have been added (but it does not necessarily have to be exhaustive, there may be even more possible) see the post of Anomie in en:Wikipedia_talk:EL#Google_redirection_URLs.
- A global filter may be an idea as an alternative, but if it is set to blocking it will have the same effect anyway (though could be more specific since the message could be made informative for specific redirects and how to avoid them) - if set to notify it is probably futile when people start to abuse it (except that we would then notice). There simply is no need to have it, just follow the link (which I hope one needs to do anyway since I hope that people read the document they want to link to), and copy it then from the address bar of your browser. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi!
- I see a big advantage in blocking urls with adapted messages, so that users can modify their link without being surprised about alleged spamming. However, there is still no global AF, is it?
- I opened a ticket now: bugzilla:32159. -- seth 22:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- (unarchived) -- seth 08:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- The sbl extension searches for
/https?:\/\/+[a-z0-9_\-.]*(\bexample\.com\b). That means our sbl entries always start with a domain part of a (full) url. That's ok because those google-links also include full urls. The problem is that those urls are encoded (see w:en:Percent-encoding) and the sbl extension does no decoding. So...?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.example.comis not resolved as...?url=http://www.example.com. Solutions could be - 1. start the regexp pattern not with
/https?:\/\/+[a-z0-9_\-.]*/but with/https?(?i::|%3a)(?i:\/|%2f){2,}[a-z0-9_\-.]*/or - 2. decode urls before using the regexp matching. -- seth 11:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- don't archive this. -- seth 21:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the problems with the archive bot. Now it should be resolved, please just remove the first template of this section when you will want this request to be archived. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- thx! :-) -- seth 21:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the problems with the archive bot. Now it should be resolved, please just remove the first template of this section when you will want this request to be archived. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The sbl extension searches for
- (unarchived) -- seth 08:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- That wouldn't catch domains like google.com.au, or paths like http://www.google.com/m/url?.... Anomie 17:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Note, that also when the blacklist would catch the links which redirect to blacklisted domains, this domain should still be blacklisted as it is still inappropriate, and can be used to avoid detection by our bots. Also, it unnecessary involves google in your linking, and not everyone may be interested in having their data being analysed by Google. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you say that these links can be restated to avoid blocking, you should EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS DONE, in VERY SIMPLE LANGUAGE in a box at the top here. Most users are not techies. I have no idea how to do it. Otherwise the block should be removed. Johnbod 15:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote a small stupid tool tools:~seth/google_url_converter.cgi which can be used to recover the original urls from the google redirects. -- seth 15:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Johnbod - As goes for practically all redirect sites - follow the link, and copy/paste the url from the address bar of your browser. Don't copy/paste the url that Google is giving you.
- To explain it further - the Google search gives you a set of google-redirects which point to the correct websites. You then click one of the redirects from Google, so Google knows that that is the result that is most interesting to you. Next time you search something similar, it will think, that that is the result of interest to you, so you it will get a higher ranking - what, it may also show up higher in rankings on searches by other people, since you thought it was more interesting. Now, as such, that is not a big issue - but if you use that google-redirect on Wikipedia, the Google rankings of that page get improved through Wikipedia. That is a loophole waiting to be abused. It is the very, very essense of Search Engine Optimisation. It is even more efficient than having your website itself on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Beetstra. But it's not always that easy to get the original url, if you want to link an excel-file for example (see w:de:WP:SBL). That's why I created the small tool. -- seth 22:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, if you want to avoid this problem and you use Firefox, you can install this extension. MER-C 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
If... I recall correctly, this kind of loophole can be detecting looking for "usg=" in the url, instead of "url=". es:Magister Mathematicae 15:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
mag4you.com/spotlight/Javeria+Abbasi/10532.htm
mag4you.com
This site was just used as a source, when I went to check it I got a threat warning. Darkness Shines 06:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- adding it to the blacklist will just mean that it cannot be added, however, it will not remove it
Comment Avast throws warning http://oltrafficstatserver.com/ad_track...
- Robtex report http://www.robtex.com/ip/188.95.53.122.html#ip
- There is no local links report, though the bot reports 86 links all on enWP. I am having COIBot generate a xwiki. billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
File links to yousendit.com
yousendit.com
I am seeing files deep linked to you senditcom. I would proposed that we should be looking to prevent the linking to files at yoursendit.com as there is going to be the high likelihood for copyright files, or files not purporting to be what is expected. I was thinking that there should be allowance for the top of the domain, however, we should look to block yousendit.com/transfer.php billinghurst sDrewth 14:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Example of what is at enWP w:en:Special:LinkSearch/*.yousendit.com billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Declined at this point through no further support, maintain status quo billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
depositfiles.com
depositfiles.com
A file storage site that has historically been used for linking to all types of files, and generally as link spam. No requirement for us to link to these sites from encyclopaedic or similar sites. If required by sites, they can whitelist specific links. billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Declined at this point through no further support, maintain status quo billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
religiousfreedomwatch.org
religiousfreedomwatch.org
- Links added onto multiple wikis with the only intent of harming living people.
- Sole purpose of the existence of this website is to denigrate living people.
- The website is operated by the intelligence agency branch of the Scientology organization, the Office of Special Affairs or OSA.
Please add to blacklist.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- A quick check only shows that the site is used at one site, enWP, however, I have a report running to see what we can identify xwiki. At this point of time, it would seem that this is a single issue matter and should be initially addressed at enWP. Acting against any site solely for their beliefs is not something in which meta can act, we would need to see widespread conflict of interest or spamming. In the absence of that, I would feel that there would need to be a broader community decision to blacklist the domain name. billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Due to the maintenance and creation of the site by the intelligence branch the Office of Special Affairs or OSA, it is most likely that usage of the link additions are conflict of interest. The clear only motivation of usage of this site is to disparage living people. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- On the basis of hearsay, and without a specific set of examples, I am not prepared to implement this request, especially as there has been matters arising from enWP around this whole subject matter. I would much prefer to see something come through enWP ArbCom as a request, or as a request from a number of wikis, or following an RFC here. billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll get to work on providing more information about how the website has its sole purpose to disparage living people. -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- On the basis of hearsay, and without a specific set of examples, I am not prepared to implement this request, especially as there has been matters arising from enWP around this whole subject matter. I would much prefer to see something come through enWP ArbCom as a request, or as a request from a number of wikis, or following an RFC here. billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Due to the maintenance and creation of the site by the intelligence branch the Office of Special Affairs or OSA, it is most likely that usage of the link additions are conflict of interest. The clear only motivation of usage of this site is to disparage living people. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
incloak.com
incloak.com
Acting as a redirect service. billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Added. --Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Case 13
Case report by COIBot.
Series of related links, made by a variety of users, over a range of sites where the sites are all inter-related, and difficult to pinpoint one specific user abusing, however, the range of sites and places looks suspicious. billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Links
airdisaster.ru
airfleets.net
avia.ru
aviaport.ru
aviasg.com
aviationpros.com
avitrader.com
balticaa.com
basel.aero
ekonomika.lt
fltechnicsline.com
fltechnicstraining.com
fltechnicsulyanovsk.ru
izvestia.ru
locatory.com
mano.vz.lt
orsk.bezformata.ru
promweekly.ru
russianplanes.net
smallplanet.aero
technologijos.lt
tourprom.ru
v-zasade.ru
vrn.vestipk.ru
- Users
User:194.85.8.36(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:209.125.23.242(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:213.197.169.174(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:78.63.233.102(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:88.216.41.43(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:95.25.81.52(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:Alesseus
User:Pytel
User:Rita1939
User:Tadas1980
User:Zoich
User:ÐбÑУбайда
Case autogenerated by COIBot. -- billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- This COI case includes sites aviasg.com, balticaa.com, fltechnicsline.com, fltechnicstraining.com, fltechnicsulyanovsk.ru, locatory.com, smallplanet.aero, and users Rita1939, Tadas1980, 213.197.169.174, 78.63.233.102, at least. But I have to notice that most of the links to these sites in ruwiki are legitimate, though some of the articles are not notable enough for ruwiki.
- Sites airdisaster.ru, airfleets.net, avia.ru, aviaport.ru, aviationpros.com, avitrader.com, basel.aero, ekonomika.lt, izvestia.ru, mano.vz.lt, orsk.bezformata.ru, promweekly.ru, russianplanes.net, technologijos.lt, tourprom.ru, v-zasade.ru, vrn.vestipk.ru are not associated with this case. Kv75 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is a xwiki compilation of edits, I did try to indicate that many happened recently though trying to easily find a pattern editors at a wiki was difficult, however, the sum of additions of low notability xwiki is suspicious. IF there are known good editors in this bunch, please identify them and we can exclude them from the report. billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- That some sites are good on some local wikis, while they are being spammed/abused XWiki does not exclude the solution that they are all meta-blacklisted, with local blacklisting on those wikis which are fine. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
nudos.org
Adsense google_ad_client = pub-8593514738061150 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com)
nudos.org
diccionariomedico.net
See also WikiProject_Spam case
- Cross wiki spam accounts
- en:Special:Contributions/62.57.6.209
- es:Special:Contributions/62.57.6.209
- en:Special:Contributions/62.57.229.229
- es:Special:Contributions/62.57.6.229
- en:Special:Contributions/186.90.114.118
- en:Special:Contributions/64.76.60.158
- es:Special:Contributions/64.76.60.158
- es:Special:Contributions/Turminator
- en:Special:Contributions/200.75.139.129
- ja:Special:Contributions/200.75.139.129
- es:Special:Contributions/200.75.139.129
- fr:Special:Contributions/200.75.139.129
- pl:Special:Contributions/200.75.139.129
- ru:Special:Contributions/200.75.139.129
- zh:Special:Contributions/200.75.139.129
- it:Special:Contributions/200.75.139.129
- en:Special:Contributions/161.116.166.62
- pt:Special:Contributions/161.116.166.62
- it:Special:Contributions/161.116.166.62
- de:Special:Contributions/161.116.166.62
- ca:Special:Contributions/161.116.166.62
Long term abuse--Hu12 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
tinyarrows.com
➡.ws
xn--hgi.ws
›.ws
xn--cwg.ws
tinyarrows.com
URL shorteners. MER-C (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
addr.co
addr.co
URL shortener used for clickjacking vandalism ([2]). It Is Me Here t / c 16:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Added. --Trijnstel (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Another Google redirect service
goo.gl
To pair all the other variations of link shortening services. Wikimedians can utilise full link length. billinghurst sDrewth 08:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Already added by Mike.lifeguard in December 2009, see here and the request. Trijnstel (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Weird, I saw it in a link feed the other day. Oh well, we have done what we can do, and now we can just watch. billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
l.to - anonymyzer that shortens urls
l.to
Shortens the url and anonymizes it, used today on the English Wikipedia to redirect to blacklisted url jews.didw.tc (see revdel'ed by another admin)Snowolf How can I help? 04:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agree that it is unnecessary, and a workaround that is undesired. billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
jewsdidwtc.amirite.biz
jewsdidwtc.amirite.biz
Spammed via template at the Dutch Wikipedia. Edits have been hidden, but see the history of w:nl:Template:InterProject if you have access. --Erwin (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Added. --Erwin (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
always.killje.ws
- Added. --Erwin (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Proposed additions (Bot reported)
|
|
This section is for domains which have been added to multiple wikis as observed by a bot.
These are automated reports, please check the records and the link thoroughly, it may report good links! For some more info, see Spam blacklist/Help#COIBot_reports. Reports will automatically be archived by the bot when they get stale (less than 5 links reported, which have not been edited in the last 7 days, and where the last editor is COIBot).
|
The LinkWatchers report domains meeting the following criteria:
- When a user mainly adds this link, and the link has not been used too much, and this user adds the link to more than 2 wikis
- When a user mainly adds links on one server, and links on the server have not been used too much, and this user adds the links to more than 2 wikis
- If ALL links are added by IPs, and the link is added to more than 1 wiki
- If a small range of IPs have a preference for this link (but it may also have been added by other users), and the link is added to more than 1 wiki.
COIBot's currently open XWiki reports
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 domain blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a domain from the blacklist is not a vote; please do not bold the first words in statements. |
bet-at-home.com
Note : This section won't be automatically archived by the bot
bet-at-home.com
Was added to blacklist 2007 because of this edit, today the company have articles on cs, de, en, hu and pt. I think blacklisting could be removed... Greets --AleXXw 11:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Do note that all the articles were created by single-purpose accounts. Seen the way that that is done on many wikis, I would consider their goal still to 'promote their company'. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that, but at least at de.wp the entry is relevant (there was an deletion request in 2007 decided to keep) and edited by some other users... I think its not useful to have an article for an internet-company and not be able to link to their homepage ;) greets --AleXXw 12:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- To that I agree, but that does not necessarily mean de-listing (there is always the whitelist to list something suitable). For en.wikipedia, I found the article pretty much primary sourced (and the secondary sources were more for statements like 'they sponsored this event'). I found the current entries on other Wikis similar (I'll have a read through the German article as well). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note: the current version on en.wikipedia seems a straight translation of the current German version (which was rewritten not too long ago). Both versions have as a first secondary source a reference for 'they sponsored this' - overall that seems quite thin for notability. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know it was written shortly, I was "Mentor" (sth like "adopt a user") of the writer. I agree to your point, but I don't think notability should be discussed here. And I still not see why one added Link into a nearly matching article can create an alltime-blacklist-entry, but this shall not be my problem ;) greets --AleXXw 22:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- "And I still not see why one added Link into a nearly matching article can create an alltime-blacklist-entry" .. You did not notice the large set of sockpuppets who have a similar modus operandi now? And that one edit was just an example of more, that link, and a set of others, was clearly spammed in the past. I am sorry, I see editors out of that sockfarm (with a large COI appearance) create articles of questionable notability on several wikis, and then we are asked to de-list to facilitate that?
- And please note, I did not decline. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I did not noticed it right now, I just wanted to add the webpage of a webcompany to its article... It is notable, at least on de.wp :) What is COI? Sorry for my bad english... Greets --AleXXw 16:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- w:Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, I would think that there is a similar article at a WP site in a language that is familiar to you if you follow the interwiki links from that page.
That a local language article does not have the url of its site may be considered unfortunate, however, the language wiki can manage that through the whitelist to circumvent a global ban. billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thx, I just didn't know the abbreviation. I'll try a whitelistentry on de.wp. Greets --AleXXw 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I saw over the past weeks several additions of links that redirect to bet-at-home.com. I have a feeling this company is actively spamming wikipedia with articles. I do feel this company lacks notability, but this is not the place for that discussion. I suggest we ask the wikipedia community of they see notability. We can then delist if this comapny is notable. EdBever 14:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi!
- I whitelisted the domain at w:de temporary, so that it could be linked in the article about itself. I removed the whitelisting afterwards, so that the meta-block is active again to prevent spamming. -- seth 12:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- w:Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, I would think that there is a similar article at a WP site in a language that is familiar to you if you follow the interwiki links from that page.
- No, I did not noticed it right now, I just wanted to add the webpage of a webcompany to its article... It is notable, at least on de.wp :) What is COI? Sorry for my bad english... Greets --AleXXw 16:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Declined at this time as there has been no further support for removal of blacklist billinghurst sDrewth 15:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nonetheless I guess temp unblocking could be useful to let authors use those links in articles about the domain, e.g. w:de:bet-at-home.com. -- seth 19:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I have written the article de and en. For pt, cs and hu I worked together with a mother-tongue speaker. This was the reason why we opened a new account in the special language Wikipedia and not the reason “promoting the company”. My adopter told me that spamming was 2006-2007 and maybe from a person from ex-Yugoslavia. I don’t know who this person is. But I am writing the articles from Austria. Due to the fact that my aim was to write an article which compares to all Wikipedia guidelines, I asked in every language where an adopter program exists, an adopter to help us. Therefore I can guarantee that I am not willing to spam with the article. It makes no sense for me because I only would like to have an actual article for bet-at-home.com. Because the company is international I would like to translate the same article from the German Wikipedia also to other language. The languages compares to the markets where the company is working in. Therefore I would be pleased if the link www.bet-at-home.com could be deleted from the global blacklist so that it would be possible for us to have the url of the site in the articles. --Bah2011 06:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing currently prohibiting the writing of the articles, just the insertion of the url. billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I know that I cannot use the url in the articles. And this is my problem. Is there some possibility to change this situation? What has to be done to delete the url from the blacklist?--Bah2011 07:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi!
- user Bah2011 contacted me via e-mail a few days ago. And I'm quite sure, that this user is not going to spam.
- Of course Bah2011 could go to every local sbl and ask for whitelisting (like at w:de), such that links to bet-at-home.com could be added to articles about bet-at-home.com. But that would be unnecessarily complicated. So a temporary global unblocking is the least thing we could and should do. -- seth 22:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have issues <-> concerns about the interest that seems somewhere between vested and conflict, even indicated by the username. While the contributor may not spam, it offers a level of control for individual wikis to watch and manage a previously problematic url, especially I don't feel that there should be an perception of an imprimatur given where the notability discussion which is being relied upon (mentioned above) at enWP was a "no consensus" decision, not a definite decision for notability. Being involved in the discussion, I am not making any decision. billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi!
- I agree with EdBever who said "We can then delist if this comapny is notable."
- It's not us who have to decise what is notable and what is not. As we can see, all articles about bet-at-home.com (at cs, de, en, hu and pt) are still existing. That means that bet-at-home.com is notable enough.
- Now it's our (admins) duty to make it technically possible for the users to place links to the website the wiki articles are about. So at least the temp unblacklisting must be done.
- The only thing we have to discuss about is whether it could be reasonable to even permanently remove the entry from the blacklist.
- The domain is blacklisted for a couple of years now, so imho we could give it a try. -- seth 21:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have issues <-> concerns about the interest that seems somewhere between vested and conflict, even indicated by the username. While the contributor may not spam, it offers a level of control for individual wikis to watch and manage a previously problematic url, especially I don't feel that there should be an perception of an imprimatur given where the notability discussion which is being relied upon (mentioned above) at enWP was a "no consensus" decision, not a definite decision for notability. Being involved in the discussion, I am not making any decision. billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I know that I cannot use the url in the articles. And this is my problem. Is there some possibility to change this situation? What has to be done to delete the url from the blacklist?--Bah2011 07:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing currently prohibiting the writing of the articles, just the insertion of the url. billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- unblocked bet-at-home.com (at least temp). after 7 days (or if Bah2011 tells here, that all needed links are placed, whatever comes first) we can decide here, whether blacklisting is still necessary. -- seth 18:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi! All links are placed now. As mentioned before, the spamming was 2006-2007 and maybe from a person from ex-Yugoslavia. The aim of this articles is not to spam Wikipedia! Therefore I would be grateful if you could remove bet-at-home.com from the blacklist. Thanks!--Bah2011 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- The temp unblocking seemed to be a success. Now the remaining question is: what reasons are there to re-activate the blacklisting? -- seth 20:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I firmly disagree with how this is now progressing. For now there is maybe no reason to re-list it, but I do think that there is a promotional thought behind all of this - the (single purpose sock) accounts all to clear have a conflict of interest, their interest is not solely to improve Wikipedia, they mainly focus on this site and its appearance on Wikipedia. Do note, that I think that de-blacklisting - linking - reblacklisting as a method is asking for problems. A specific link should be found that points to a homepage (e.g. an index.html) and for each wiki a whitelist rule should be added that enables solely that link (and still should only be on the page where it is intended) and then that link should be used on the pages (and that is what I did suggest above). Every time now that one of these pages on one of these wikis gets significantly vandalised (in a way that breaks the link) it would be impossible to revert (OK, here we maybe do not re-blacklist). This also is a way around local discussions on all wikis whether a link and/or article is really needed on that wiki. Moreover, I think there was not a clear consensus for removal, and now a temporary removal is turned into a permanent removal. I am afraid that this is setting a bad precedent, next time it will be an SEO asking for de-listing so that they can spam the company, and when we decline they can point to this discussion. Please, get the whitelisting in place on all wikis, that is why we have whitelists, or get a proper consensus for de-listing (something that I would not necessarily be against, though I do have concerns, but do get proper consensus for de-listing). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I re-read the discussions above, and I see that sDrewth and EdBever have similar concerns as I have, while AleXXw and Lutiger seth seem to have an opposite view (which IMHO is a great reason to whitelist it locally, not to de-blacklist). Seen also that the editor used a redirect (since the official place trips the blacklist) and has a conflict of interest does make me come to the conclusion that this needs a better discussion for de-blacklisting. I have hence undone the removal that Lustiger seth carried out a couple of days ago. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I only can say again that I’ve worked together with mother-tongue speakers. This was the reason why we opened new accounts in the special language Wikipedia and not the reason “promoting the company”. The aim was to actualize the old article and to translate the article in other languages because the company is international. When I actualized the article I mentioned that the website is on the blacklist and therefore I had problems when I prepared the article. This was a reason why I asked for re-blacklist. --Bah2011 06:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is the perspective that I am seeing. We have an editor who is taking interest in a single company, across multiple languages, with no evident previous background, nor edit history anywhere; has a name that aligns with the product in which they are writing. The articles don't exist cross-wiki apart from where this editor has started, despite them having a reputed notability. The editor ignores or dismisses commentary about the surrounding aspects of their specific interest, and does not state their reason for focusing on the subject. The focus of the discussion is solely on writing the article and their working with those who have the language skills.
Call me a cynic, but I don't buy it. Part of the role at meta is to be on the lookout for people linking cross-wiki one url and exhibiting a conflict of interest. If it was a humanitarian organisation, I could see why someone could have the passion to do that, for a business in this business sector, I don't buy it. There are not multiple people/communities writing the articles nor expressing interest in the article, there is not. The statement was that the domain url has been spammed, and that is usually a pay for fee process, not a whimsical matter, and if that the organisation on the blacklist at that time, those are the consequences of that action. I believe that I see self-interest, not the interest of the projects. In my opinion, get a whitelist at the wikis if you can, ensure that you link to this discussion when you make the request, as I doubt that when the matter was previously raised that you clearly expressed that you were single article focused crosswiki. If I was investigating motive, I would be suspecting a paid professional writer, or a sock. That sounds like an opinion and that clearly rules me out of assessing the balance of the argument. billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is the perspective that I am seeing. We have an editor who is taking interest in a single company, across multiple languages, with no evident previous background, nor edit history anywhere; has a name that aligns with the product in which they are writing. The articles don't exist cross-wiki apart from where this editor has started, despite them having a reputed notability. The editor ignores or dismisses commentary about the surrounding aspects of their specific interest, and does not state their reason for focusing on the subject. The focus of the discussion is solely on writing the article and their working with those who have the language skills.
- I only can say again that I’ve worked together with mother-tongue speakers. This was the reason why we opened new accounts in the special language Wikipedia and not the reason “promoting the company”. The aim was to actualize the old article and to translate the article in other languages because the company is international. When I actualized the article I mentioned that the website is on the blacklist and therefore I had problems when I prepared the article. This was a reason why I asked for re-blacklist. --Bah2011 06:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree fully with billinghurst so Declined. No valid reason to remove and local whitelisting is available if the community require it. --Herby talk thyme 11:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- @Bah2011. On en.wikipedia I have expressed concerns as to the notability of the subject (I nominated it for deletion), and seen the article, I believe that it still lacks sufficient references to give it notability (most of the independent references state something like 'it was sponsored by bet-at-home.com' .. that is about as much as there is. So, start a company, sponsor something, people will write that you sponsored it, and you are notable? No, it does not work that way IMHO). Moreover, the domain got originally blacklisted because of promotion, and now these pages are created/edited, IMHO that is still because of promotion. I do not buy anything else. If you get linked and found on the internet, it is because of good SEO, not because of proven notability (where are reviews that compare bet-at-home.com with other online betting companies, etc. etc. - are they there? do they exist?). I am sorry, Bah2011, IMHO you are only here to promote bet-at-home.com. That was the case when it was originally blacklisted, and that is still the case. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree in that point that Bah2011 probably has got self-interest. But I also see that this users aim is, to write articles that totally fulfill our rules. And as we can see, this user doesn't do a bad job. At the RfD at w:en there was no consensus for deletion. Bah2011 wrote the article in five wikipedias, and not a single one of those articles were deleted. So the subject is notable. (Or am I wrong?)
- There had been some (not really much) spamming of this domain back in 2007. That's more than 4 years ago. How long shall a link be blacklisted? 100 years? Even if the article about the url exists?
- One suggestion to user Bah2011 was get a whitelist at the wikis if you can. I already set the domain on the whitelist at w:de, temporarily, s.t. the link could be placed in the article. Of course that user can do that in every single wikipedia, where a article shall be created. But it's senseless to have an url blacklisted globally and multi-whitelisted locally. Afair we unblocked an url, if it got whitelisted in two big wikipedias. -- seth 17:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seth, yes, there was a suggestion to whitelist, which IMHO should be a start - and that was done. That that happens on 2 wikis does already suggest that the link may be ripe for de-listing. And I did initially not decline, actually, I did not decline anywhere. Others were also not very positive, and some have declined delisting - at that time certainly there was no consensus in favor of delisting.
- Noting the whitelisting, I see you said that you whitelisted it on de.wikipedia, added the link, and then de-whitelisted again. The common practice on en.wikipedia is to whitelist a index.htm, index.html, or even an about.htm specifically for use as 'official homepage' - although that does not prohibit further spamming of the homepage on that wiki, it does prohibit the use of other pages on the same site (pages that IIRC were used in the original spamming). Someone who seriously vandalises the page will still make the original unsaveable, and an admin may have to go again through the same process. That is not the function of the whitelist.
- And I agree, in 4 years a lot can change, companies can change to serious, notable companies. Serious requests are indeed often granted, but those were not arguments given at any stage in the delisting request. Do note, that several editors here do think that the notability is thin, very thin (but notable nonetheless).
- What I disagreed with, and why I did re-list is that you then go ahead with a temporary delisting, and then after a couple of days unilaterally decide that it is going to be kept off the list. I still think that that is setting a bad precedent, and goes against the non-consensus for delisting. Several editors have given their concerns, which means that we need to get to consensus before a permanent delisting should be performed. To enable for that discussion, I have re-listed awaiting that.
- Regarding delisting, seen that the original spamming was 4 years ago, and that the company does seem notable enough for articles, I will again not decline de-listing, but would like to see additional arguments. I do still have concerns that this is clever SEO of a not-too-notable company. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment at English Wikpedia, the article for deletion process closed as no consensus which should be considered differently as keep and having achieved notability. billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com
Presumably blocked because of the "dogsex" sequence in the URL (which actually stands for "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"), this link is quite useful to illustrate some points in discussions and therefore should be unblocked. --Cú Faoil 10:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dogsex is not on the blacklist. I am not sure what does trigger the blacklist, but I do not feel like looking for all instances of sex on the list. I suggest you request local whitelisting for this website if you really want to add it to an article. EdBever 19:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's a site related to a movie generated quite some reactions (see en:Pedigree Dogs Exposed and interwiki) that is maintained by the director of that movie, so I think it would actually be quite useful to be able to link to this globally. When I try entering the URL, the output is that "pedigreedogsex" triggered the spam filter. --Cú Faoil 23:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then it may just be in the blacklist at enWP. If it is in their blacklist, then you will need to ask there;, if you want it in their whitelist, you will need to ask there. w:en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi!
- You can use the tool http://toolserver.org/~seth/grep_regexp_from_url.cgi to check, where (and why) a link is blacklisted. In this case, "dogsex" is on the meta blacklist. I'll modify the regexps in the next few minutes, s.t. pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com will be linkable. -- seth 20:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then it may just be in the blacklist at enWP. If it is in their blacklist, then you will need to ask there;, if you want it in their whitelist, you will need to ask there. w:en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's a site related to a movie generated quite some reactions (see en:Pedigree Dogs Exposed and interwiki) that is maintained by the director of that movie, so I think it would actually be quite useful to be able to link to this globally. When I try entering the URL, the output is that "pedigreedogsex" triggered the spam filter. --Cú Faoil 23:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
outlandishtr.com
outlandishtr.com
This page is a site which supports the music band called Outlandish in Turkey and broadcas.And hope you can remove this site from blacklist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.179.199.36 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2012
- It is a fansite, less authoritative than a reputed news site, at the same time, the User:COIBot/XWiki/outlandishtr.com indicates that it is only on two wikis, which would usually mean that it should be handled locally rather than at meta. I would prefer that this was handled locally by the enWP/trWP communities than the overarching list. All that said, there does seem to be some overlinking, and I would encourage to limit any link addition to the main article page, rather than wider adding of the url through multiple pages. billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
www.shanghairanking.com
shanghairanking.com
This is a source corresponding with values found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_US_university_ranking. The source corresponding with the values seems to be allowed in many if not most US university articles on en.wikipedia.org, but is apparently blocked in some or a few, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Mellon_University. --81.100.44.233 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- It does look to be a somewhat problematic link, and enWP's use of tools to manage some of the linking is further indicative of its misuse. Also 263 links on 21 projects would indicate that it is acceptable, though no Xwiki report makes the analysis a little more difficult. Probably should be removed and watched, and may reappear in the blacklist if it is again being abused. billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just do it the old way, billinghurst. If you look at the editors mentioned in the LinkReport linked from the tracking template, I see many IPs adding this to many wikis. That looks to me like it is en:WP:REFSPAM (I see occasions where there are two references for a statement, and then a third to 'shanghairanking.com' is added to it - shanghairanking was not used to write the statement, I will assume the other two were - but those are not the links under discussion in this thread at least). I will have a better look later. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
nedcruise.info
nedcruise.info
I tried to add some ship details on this article MV Seabourn Quest but it refuses due to global blacklisting, this site has good collection of ship's specs. As I can see, there was constant spamming from a user in 2007, can this be removed, or should I find an alternative reference?— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zevnik (talk)
- Hmm, the discussion you link did not result in the blacklisting (though the warning is already there that someone this persistent will not stop. The blacklisting is in December 2007: Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-12#nedcruise.info. Both that discussion and the discussion you linked (Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/08#nedcruise.info) contain links to further discussions elsewhere.
- If links are on the blacklist this long, I am generally tempted to attempt a delisting when an established, noninvolved editor asks for delisting, but seen the persistence of the abuse, I am asking you to consider the alternatives here. One is indeed finding another reference (but that may be difficult), the other is to ask for whitelisting of the specific link (the whole link, not only the domain) on the wiki where you want to use the link. But if you think the information of the site is of broad interest (many links may be used in the future), I will de-list the link (and hope that the spamming does not continue).
- I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- The site has quite some valuable info on the ships topic, but I will discuss it first in WP:SHIPS, if this ref site is valuable to anyone else. --Zevnik 12:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
asianmediawiki.com
asianmediawiki.com
I am trying to add information on several pages that goes back to asianmediawiki as the primary source and rather than trying to get each page whitelisted I think it's better if you can just remove the global blacklist.
For the wikipedia movie page for "My Way" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Way_(2011_film)), AsianMediaWiki attended and posted transcripts of the press conference with the director and main actors http://asianmediawiki.com/My_Way_(Korean_Movie)#Press Conference (Busan International Film Festival) There's no other site that has this information and this is first hand source material I think readers want to know about.
There's also the Gantz live action film that I want to quote from AsianMediaWiki's Gantz page where they attended the Bucheon International Fantastic Film Festival and posted transcripts of the director speaking on that film http://asianmediawiki.com/GANTZ_(2011-Japan-Live_Action).
Also there's photos of the director of "Sunny" Kang Hyung-Chul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kang_Hyeong-cheol) that AsianMediaWiki took http://asianmediawiki.com/File:Kang_Hyung-Chul-BIFF-p2.jpg and released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License that we can use.
Also Shota Matsuda's photo http://asianmediawiki.com/File:Shota_Matsuda-BIFF-p3.jpg licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License that we can use here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shota_Matsuda) with the blacklist removed for attribution.
Photo of Riisa Naka http://asianmediawiki.com/File:Riisa_Naka-BIFF-p2.jpg taken by AsianMediaWiki and we can use here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riisa_Naka) with their Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
There's also the "A Reason to Live" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Reason_to_Live_(2011_film)) that could use information from the press conference at the Busan International Film Festival attended by AsianMediaWiki http://asianmediawiki.com/A_Reason_To_Live.
There's also a lot more I can't recall right now, but this is all first hand stuff that is needed on these pages and I can add without this blacklist.
--Gouchi 16:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the local blacklist reports, and looking at the blacklist report at enWP, the site that you note has been abused on our wikis, and I don't see a convincing reason to remove the domain from the global blacklist to again expose the wikis to that spam. I would suggest that you see if enWP is willing to whitelist the domain, as you identified only English language edits. billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
deathcamps.org
deathcamps.org
deathcamps.org is a serious site describing ghettos (death camps) in nazi-occupated Europe, en:Aktion Reinhard and more. It is quite a good documentation.
I used a table with data concerning about 400 ghettos from deathcamps.org (with kind permission) for creating de:Liste der Ghettos in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus.
Some years ago there was a break in the working group and an alternative site death-camps.org claimed to be the legal successor. However, it was closed down again soon after. That internal argument is over.
The site deathcamps.org is whitelisted in language wikipedias de, el, fi, and he.
I would like to ask you to remove deathcamps.org from the black-list-entry.
Thank you very much
Yours faithfully -- Simplicius 08:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- This looks that it was imposed due to a dispute between websites over content and intellectual property, (discussion). It notes that when there is a resolution of that dispute, and that WMF sites are no further drawn into their content disputes, then we can look to remove it. billinghurst sDrewth 23:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- The dispute and editwar is resolved: the twin-site death-camps.org was removed some months later. Simplicius 09:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds positive, that being the case and there being no other history, I would favour its removal. billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I note that the link is whitelisted on de, el, fi and he - which seem to me typical Wikis where, if there would be on-wiki abuse, it would be abused (knowing history, this might not spill onto en.wikipedia thát much). I would suggest that all of the sites involved would then be removed to avoid advantages on one side or the other. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to correct myself. It is actually, besides here, black (not white) listed on de, el, fi and he wikipedia. Unfortunately, that may change the situation. We'll have to look more into this. Sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)(sigh) --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please note: my request is refering to the site deathcamps.org (without "-").
- deathcamps.org was whitelisted in many projects.
- As said, the other project vanished. -- Simplicius 08:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are right. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
www.46-brilliant-collegiate-secrets.com/
www.46-brilliant-collegiate-secrets.com
Please remove the site, it's for selling stuff.
Thanks very much -- jokido 16:34, 11 February 2012
- Declined This is part of large spam racket put together by Commission Breakthrough to insert links into Wikipedia articles and then to collect money from payment services for click through. Please do note that it is not the scope or goals of Wikimedia is not here to help you sell "stuff". billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
www.eirikur.info
www.eirikur.info
Official homepage for vocalist Eiríkur Hauksson, blocked in 2007 (http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=773172#eirikur.info), has 27 iw's, I see no reason for this to be blocked. Please un-block. KEN 16:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
cropcirclesandmore.com
cropcirclesandmore.com
- cropcirclesandmore.com/where/present/cropcirclelocations.html
- reden: Is ooit toegevoegd aan blacklist omdat de site commercieel zou zijn en geen toegevoegde waarde zou hebben voor het onderwerp Graancirkels. Dit verbaast mij ten zeerste omdat 1. De site NIET commercieel is en 2. Het up-to-date karakter van de site juist een enorm toegevoegde waarde heeft.
- relevante links:
- verzoek door: Bert Janssen 24.121.198.79 01:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-04#cropcirclesandmore.com there is evidence of link farming, across multiple domains. As notation for community the complainant is the owner of the listed website … http://cropcirclesandmore.com/content/welcome.html billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- That has a specific pointer to enWP blacklist billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Bert Janssen, you should have a look at those links that sDrewth is providing here, and address those concerns. You are wrong about the reasons why this was actually added. To spell it out: it was added because someone added this domain to a lot of wikis, because someone pushed the link even when uninvolved editors removed it (and not let consensus decide whether the link should actually be included), and because someone moved the link to more prominent position. The reason that is being done, is likely because that someone wanted to divert traffic to your site. Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
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). |
x.co
x.co
The current filter entry is too strict, as it even blocks urls containing this string which is a frequent one. For example www.san-x.co.jp is blocked, which doesn't make any sense. --Mps 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done fixed as per seth's previous lookbehind regex. Thanks for taking the time to post here and to tell us about this matter. billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
cjb
cjb.net
hateplow.cjb.net
For some reason every cjb.net-Website is blocked. Somebody wanted to add the site http://hateplow.cjb.net/ and failed. Maybe it's beacuse of the \bcjb\.net\b entry, but I'm no expert. --Gripweed 09:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is a url shortener/redirect. Look at http://do73i.cjb.net billinghurst sDrewth 09:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are a couple of possible solutions:
- You can just use another (not blacklisted) link to the same page: http://www.arcticmusicgroup.com/hateplow.
- If hateplow.cjb.net is mentioned much more often than www.arcticmusicgroup.com/hateplow, it's possible to unblacklist this special domain
- locally at w:de or
- globally her at meta, by using a special syntax (zero-width negative look-behind assertions)
- I suggest, using the www.arcticmusicgroup.com-link would be the best solution. -- seth 16:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks... Didn't know the url-shortener-thing --Gripweed 20:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Not done then. Trijnstel 14:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks... Didn't know the url-shortener-thing --Gripweed 20:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are a couple of possible solutions:
pump.pp4l.me
pump.pp4l.me
- Also see the Urban Dictionary entry for PP4L
The site was added by Vituzzu (talk · contribs) but it still displays on en.wp. It Is Me Here t / c 13:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- The blacklist will not remove a link already in place, though it should prevent the continued addition. Remove it from the article and all should be good. billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
|
|
This section is for discussion of Spam blacklist issues among other users. |
Replacement for Eagle's cross-wiki linksearch tool
URL: http://wikipediatools.appspot.com/linksearch.jsp, example: [3]. The source code is hosted here. Let me know if there are any problems or if you would like any other tools. Bear in mind that this runs on Google App Engine, which is subject to these limitations and has no connection to the LinkWatcher database. MER-C 07:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done - More than one of these would be nice, actually. Kylu 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not done? Or at least explain what we should do. Template:spamlink or Template:linksearch give us links to Eagle's dead tool. I can't fix the templates to something else, not being admin. --Abd 21:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that should also happen. My initial post primarily for informational purposes only; some admin should have taken the initiative to replace in linksummary by now (after all, that's what happened on en.wp). MER-C 13:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for making a replacement. --Erwin 14:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that should also happen. My initial post primarily for informational purposes only; some admin should have taken the initiative to replace in linksummary by now (after all, that's what happened on en.wp). MER-C 13:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I feel much betta now. --Abd 02:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- The spam archives link in the linksearch template refers to Eagle's tool as well, so it fails. This should be fixed, or removed, pending, it wastes user time clicking on it. it could be replaced by direct links to searches, perhaps. --Abd 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I remember this tool having a regex search facility. That would be too resource intensive but it's easy to search each of prefix:User_talk:XLinkBot, prefix:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist, prefix:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, prefix:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam, prefix:Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard on en.wp and here on meta, prefix:Talk:Spam_blacklist + query (did I miss any?) -- creating a combined search servlet should only take 15 minutes. (That's tomorrow's job.) MER-C 07:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't going to happen for some time yet due to API bugs. MER-C 03:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- If they can't be replaced, broken tools should be removed from the protected templates, they cause users to waste their time. I'd fix it if I could! --Abd 12:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't going to happen for some time yet due to API bugs. MER-C 03:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I remember this tool having a regex search facility. That would be too resource intensive but it's easy to search each of prefix:User_talk:XLinkBot, prefix:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist, prefix:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, prefix:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam, prefix:Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard on en.wp and here on meta, prefix:Talk:Spam_blacklist + query (did I miss any?) -- creating a combined search servlet should only take 15 minutes. (That's tomorrow's job.) MER-C 07:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Update: both the API bugs (#29746 and #29748) have been fixed and will be deployed with MW 1.19, whenever that is. Don't expect anything for the next six months or so. MER-C 03:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- The fixes have been deployed with MW 1.18. The URL for my tool is http://wikipediatools.appspot.com/spamarchivesearch.jsp . MER-C 11:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Template updates
To note that last week that I updated the templates
{{LinkSummary}}{{IPSummary}}{{UserSummary}}
On a similar note, I have hunted down a few other cases of hardcoded internal urls that caused issues for those logged in through the secure service. If others see such hard links (point to WMF & Toolserver urls with http:// rather than https://) when logged in securely then please let me know and I will seek them out. Erwin and Luxo have both updated some of their scripts to assist us. billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
.onion url addresses
Do we have a opinion, or a position on en:w:.onion type urls that are associated with TOR networks? They are being added at various times, and generally xwiki example, and there is little guidance on how they are being or how they could/should be managed. billinghurst sDrewth 05:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do not use TOR and I may not fully understand what .onion does, but as far as I can tell it's basically another route to a website (via TOR). As long as .onion domains are used in articles about TOR or onion routing I think it's OK, but any other use should be prohibited and normal URL's should be used (just like the policy on URL shorteners). EdBever 11:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)