Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-11
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in November 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Proposed additions
|
This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted |
aerobaticteams.net
aerobaticteams.net
Per COIBot XWiki report, this one has been abused, however there are some legitimate uses. I think we can blacklist this for now - if it becomes a problem in the future, we can remove it again, or consider whitelisting. As well, recall that the blacklist no longer "locks" pages with spam links - you can still save the page as long as you're not adding links. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Removed in es-wiki. (only one link) Dferg (T-ES) 09:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lots of abuse on en:
- w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 1#aerobaticteams.net, aerobaticteams.110mb.com
- w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 1#aerobaticteams.110mb.com
- w:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008#aerobaticteams.net
- w:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/06#aerobaticteams.net
- w:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2008#www.aerobaticteams.net
- In adition: (all links in en-wiki) and this domain:
spam.aerobaticteams.net
I suggest the adition Dferg (T-ES) 10:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I added all the spam.aerobaticteams.net links for tracking purposes (that's why the subdomain is "spam"). MER-C 13:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, 
Added then. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
harptabs.com
harptabs.com
(Violates copyright laws. Free transcriptions of copyrighted music in tablature form. Includes melodies, harmonies, lyrics, videos of various artists performances, recordings of these songs without a license from the copyright holder).
- I'm inclined to blacklist on that basis, what do others think? JzG 15:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the site violates copyright laws I think it is not good for the project, so I'm inclined to blacklist the link. Dferg (T-ES) 16:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Highly Agreed. - By: Mister31
Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Rummy spam
- Domains
seinfeldx.net
rummyroyal.com
onlinerummikub.com
rummy-500.com
winner-horse.com
{{spamlink|rummikub.org}}
remi.co.il
- Spammers
User:212.179.74.34(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:89.139.74.23(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:89.139.171.176(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:89.138.43.252(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- Spammed on ru wikipedia, see ru:Special:Contributions/89.138.43.252.
User:80.230.173.121(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:201.240.152.131(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:190.65.192.46(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- Spammed on nl wikipedia, see nl:Special:Contributions/190.65.192.46
User:71.187.183.8(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- Spammer moved links up.
See WikiProject Spam item (permanent link). MER-C 12:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have time to look into this carefully; some asmin might want to look at:
- w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/seinfeldx.net
- w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/rummyroyal.com
- w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/onlinerummikub.com
- w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/rummy-500.com
- w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/winner-horse.com
- w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/rummikub.org
- w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/remi.co.il
- --A. B. (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have time to look into this carefully; some asmin might want to look at:
- Added (except rummikub.org) - I see a few small ranges adding these links. The behaviour here constitutes abuse. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
smnoticias.com.ar
smnoticias.com.ar
This domain has been repeatedly added spam, and create a autopromotional article: [[1]] — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bashebore (talk)
- Sorry, as I can see the additions where only on es-wikipedia and where only three. If you believe this link must be blacklisted, request it on es-wiki in es:MediaWiki Discusión:Spam-blacklist. Thank you. Dferg (T-ES) 09:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Declined per Dferg - please use local blacklisting or blocking to control this. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
davidbenariel.org
davidbenariel.org
- sample spamming
- en:Special:Contributions/72.241.250.78
- en:Special:Contributions/4.252.164.186
- en:Special:Contributions/4.252.163.186
- en:Special:Contributions/4.159.157.232
This guy has been POV pushing through spam to self published pieces for a long time. I asked for and received blacklisting on a bunch of blogspot articles and ezine.com last year on Meta [2].
Turns out he's been back with his own domain since March of this year. Sites added to multiple articles by multiple IPs over a fairly long period of time so blocks and protection aren't going to work. Have been asked at en:wiki to seek Meta level blacklisting to prevent this site spilling over onto other projects since the previous sites were crosswiki spammed.[3] Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 19:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, here's some background on his previous cross-wiki spamming:
- Here are more Ben-Ariel domains:
- Here are more Ben-Ariel domains:
baldwinchuck.blogspot.com
bidenobama.blogspot.com
clintonhillary.blogspot.com
davidbenariel.blogspot.com
heres-your-chance-to-apologize.blogspot.com
jewjewsjewish.blogspot.com
jewsforjoseph.blogspot.com
nationalmessenger.blogspot.com
philadelphiachurchgod.blogspot.com
plaintruthmagazine.blogspot.com
sorry-iam.blogspot.com
thepeoplewe.blogspot.com
worldwidechurchgod.blogspot.com
wrightjeremiah.blogspot.com
davidbenariel.wordpress.com
- Added --A. B. (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
cavenaghi.artelista.com
cavenaghi.artelista.com
User:Nilton Cavenaghi
This user adds links to cavenaghi.artelista.com on different projects like on de, en, it and nl. Silver Spoon 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
User:189.19.83.145(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
Also Active as IP-adress on es, pt and fr. Silver Spoon 19:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Added --A. B. (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
hindyugm.com
hindyugm.com
merekavimitra.blogspot.com
niyamawamsharten.blogspot.com
hindyugmparichay.blogspot.com
niyamawamsharten.blogspot.com
kaviparichay.blogspot.com
hindyugm.mypodcast.com
baaludyan.blogspot.com
kahanikalash.blogspot.com
- Spammers
User:125.63.122.6(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:125.63.122.4(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:203.122.61.29(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:210.18.185.114(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- and others
See WikiProject Spam item. MER-C 06:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
williamlong.info spam
- Spam domains
williamlong.info
mzlit.cn
- Spam accounts
User:Fiilott
User:Williamlong
User:211.115.111.59(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- en:Special:Contributions/Fiilott
- en:Special:Contributions/211.115.111.59
- zh:Special:Contributions/Williamlong
- n:zh:Special:Contributions/Williamlong
--A. B. (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- More spam:
bokee.org
i928.net
seohu.org
- Related domains:
70blog.com
houhai.com
i70s.com
70bbs.com
houhai.net
- More IPs:
User:118.128.187.152(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:122.49.120.198(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:203.229.190.1(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:210.127.223.248(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:211.56.10.3(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:221.148.152.52(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:222.231.29.23(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:58.150.125.61(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:58.151.219.135(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:59.7.31.133(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:60.186.206.149(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- Added --A. B. (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
porno.chatlaak.com
porno.chatlaak.com
Porn spam, please block ASAP. This user has vandalised and spammed articles. See User:COIBot/XWiki/porno.chatlaak.com. EdBever 09:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
bstat.it
bstat.it
bstat.co.uk
As before, see [4] [5]. MER-C 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Added. -- — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Nike shoes spammer
branddaze.com
cooljordanshoes.com
nikejordanshoesonsale.com
Continuously spams different domains and tries to pass them as references etc. Various IP's in the same range editted. Mainly on en: but also on zh:. See Coibot reports. EdBever 11:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
zoomcad.com
zoomcad.com
See COIbot xwiki report. Persistent crosswiki linkspamming. Please blacklist ASAP. EdBever 12:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
aylak.com
- Domains
aylak.com
fotoambar.com
rottforum.com
rottder.org.tr
mynet.com
- There are over 500 links to this site on tr.wikipedia; it may be a hosting service like Yahoo or narod.ru, so I reverted my blacklisting of this link. --A. B. (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
okeytek.com
weblence.com
eziyetsiz.com
romanticapart.com
rapclips.net
okeycafe.com
netarac.com
- Accounts
User:88.249.98.46(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- ca:Especial:Contribucions/88.249.98.46
- de:Spezial:Beiträge/88.249.98.46
- wikt:en:Special:Contributions/88.249.98.46
- en:Special:Contributions/88.249.98.46
- fr:Special:Contributions/88.249.98.46
- ht:Espesyal:Kontribisyon/88.249.98.46
- tr:Özel:Katkılar/88.249.98.46
--A. B. (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added. --A. B. (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, here are more accounts:
- For the record, here are more accounts:
User:85.101.254.140(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:85.107.138.119(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:85.110.119.94(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:85.110.114.83(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:85.110.54.86(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
interview spam
User:66.231.131.47(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
cyinterview.com
thesportsinterview.com
diaday.com
— Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added (cyinterview.com was already added) — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
davemckay.co.uk
Cross wiki spam, active today - has been going on for a long time. There are 467 links in the 57 biggest Wikipedias.
davemckay.co.uk
These are the IPs that has inserted the link on nn.wikipedia, they have all inserted the link on other Wikipedias too. It is likely to be lots more IP's that has been used to insert the link.
User:92.42.149.4(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.50.227(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.65.79.109(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:212.139.16.216(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:194.247.229.86(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.69.123.142(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:212.1.140.27(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:194.247.238.222(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
--Jorunn 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Some more IPs:
User:79.65.66.177(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.69.30.17(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.69.117.253(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.65.104.85(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.69.123.142(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.65.79.109(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.65.106.201(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.69.116.50(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.74.102.168(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.115.200(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.55.215(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.57.127(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.69.75.190(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.65.36.120(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.113.92(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.92.71(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
--Jorunn 22:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- More IP's:
User:212.1.137.173(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:212.1.145.26(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.74.100.182(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.24.192(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.65.86.178(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.49.238(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.65.35.137(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.35.236(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.122.153(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.55.63(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:79.66.16.211(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- UGH, Added & Thanks to Jorunn for the legwork. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- UGH,
- So what? Are the links irrelevant? Is a link to a collection of Hume's works in English a spam if added to an article on David Hume in any language? Andres 08:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- This website does have a collection of Humes work, but so does other sites, like Project Gutenberg and en.wikisource. Anyone can make their own website with content that is in the public domain. Copy some content from Project Gutenberg, add some Google AdSense ads, and then insert the link to your new website in any and all Wikipedia articles you find. Someone can probably benefit from that, but I don't think it is the encyclopedic articles and the readers of those that benefits from it.
- A different matter is that the website claimes all their content is in the public domain, but there is also some work of Bertrand Russel from the 1960's for instance, can that really be in the public domain? And I can't find any information about who has translated the works of non english writers. I suspect there is copyright issues too, not only excessive cross wiki link insertion.
- We could let anyone insert links to their own websites, but I don't think we should. --Jorunn 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
nofoiegras.org
nofoiegras.org
Current cross-wiki spam. Added, but perhaps temp? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like a useful site, so I'm removing this now. Hopefully they will not return. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Not cross-wiki, but …
- ht*p://soft82.fu8.com/norton-antivirus.php
- Redirects to:
- ht*p://check-antivir-tool.net/1/?id=21309
- ht*p://jproshin.info/stech/go.php?sid=1
- Redirects to:
- ht*p://tube-dudes.net/get.php?id=21121&p=59
soft82.fu8.com
jproshin.info
tube-dudes.net
check-antivir-tool.net
User:98.145.177.88(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
The page at ht*p://check-antivir-tool.net/1/?id=21309 performs a bogus "check' of your computer when you load the page, reports non-existent problems, then insists you download their .exe file.
Can someone more familiar with checking for malicious code check these out? Even though these domains (to my knowledge) have only been spammed one time to en.wikipedia, I recommend blacklisting these sites here across all Wikimedia (and other Media-Wiki wikis) if there is a threat to users following these links. --A. B. (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added naughty naughty. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
facebookster.com-related spam
- Spam domains
facebookster.com
logobench.com
salactive.com
- Related domains
brandfish.net
power-tab.com
powertabglobal.com
salsoft.biz
salsoft.net
seharproducts.com
zafranrestaurants.com
- Spam accounts
User:Robertfalco
User:116.71.7.37(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:116.71.18.12(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:116.71.18.151(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:202.70.156.37(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- en:Special:Contributions/Robertfalco
- en:Special:Contributions/116.71.7.37
- it:Speciale:Contributi/116.71.18.12
- fr:Special:Contributions/116.71.18.12
- de:Spezial:Beiträge/116.71.18.151
- es:Especial:Contribuciones/116.71.18.151
- fr:Special:Contributions/202.70.156.37
--A. B. (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added (but not the related domains). — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
icanhaz.com
I hate to do this, since it's such a cute domain name... but pls blacklist this URL shrinker site.. --Versageek 05:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is cute ^_^
- It's also Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Deep Forest spammer
Massive fansite spamming in en:Deep Forest at least in enwiki, fiwiki and dewiki
- Spam domain
deepforestmusic.com
- Spam accounts
User:24.136.204.214(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:152.19.48.54(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:152.19.65.220(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
--Agony 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- User found out blacklisting and changed url:
deepforest.gotdns.com
- --Agony 09:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added. --Erwin(85) 10:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- --Agony 09:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to blacklist deepforestmusic.com. This site has been around for over five years, and is by far the most detailed Deep Forest site available.
www.deepforestmusic.com has always been linked to on the Deep Forest wiki pages. And it was this last summer that someone began erasing the links deepforestmusic.com and replacing them with deep-projects.com
The long history of undo's was in direct response to the person from deep-projects that kept removing deepforestmusic. Deep-projects has no Deep Forest content, other than Eric Mouquet's more recent work which is not Deep Forest since it does not include Michel Sanchez. So it seems unfair to blacklist deepforestmusic when it is the person from deep-projects that has been spamming wikipedia.
Please review the histories below, and you will see that the same user is deleting deepforestmusic.com and replacing it with deep-projects.com everytime — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soup (talk)
- However crosswiki spamming with multiple IP's is not right way to approach this problem, every Wikipedia have article discussion page where this problem must be conversed. Besides www.deep-projects.com claims to be official site of Eric Mouguet (one of the members) which will override fansite in all ways. --Agony 09:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, deep-projects.com is Eric's site, but it is not the OFFICIAL site. Deep Forest is Eric and Michel. Deep-projects should be labeled as Eric's site, not the official site, which would be unfair to Michel.
- It is ridiculous to blacklist deepforestmusic.com, when this site has 100x the Deep Forest content of any other site, and is the only active Deep Forest site. Wikipedia should be a resource for the readers, not an advertisement for the band members. If readers want to know more about Deep Forest, they should certainly be aware of deepforesmusic.com. After all, most of the content from the wiki articles originated from deepforestmusic.com, and is even used as a citation in some articles!
- I don't think it is a problem to have deep-projects listed, but the person who kept editing the page was deleting the link to deepforestmusic.com. This person is the webmaster of deep-projects, and was basically trying to erase any evidence that deepforestmusic.com existed.
- You may be right that undoing his edits may have not been the best way to go about this, but I was unaware of another way to handle this until now.
- I still see no reason to have chosen to blacklist deepforestmusic.com and not deep-projects.com, they should both be listed, one as a Deep Forest fan site, the other as Eric Mouquet's PERSONAL website.
- Please note that this is not the place to discuss this. Please use the talk page. The URL will be removed if there's consensus to link to this site. --Erwin(85) 10:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The original reason for adding the domains is valid. Further discussion should happen on the relevant article's talk page. If need be, request whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use, since removal at this time is not going to happen. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
piurl.com
Another URL shrinker site, provided by the fine spammers at w:Adult FriendFinder. --Versageek 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Pharmacy terrorists
http://canadian-meds-shop.com/ (you can click on it, I linked to the scamfraudalert.com site) is likely to spam. Please block the address! --Lovuschka 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- This one will need some research for other domains. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- There are 200 domains from this scam, plus a few domains that were spammed along with them. The regexes are hidden in a comment here to avoid bloating the page.
- Spammers:
User:Adiluly
User:SabinaKabina
User:77.246.104.167(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:91.202.26.3(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:Cheapoffer
User:Rocksblame
User:Cheapoffer55
User:88.191.80.98(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:66.96.196.25(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- and probably others.
- Given the scale of this scam and spamming, I'd recommend blacklisting them all.
- — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, they are spamming OTRS. Added everything. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, they are spamming OTRS.
123seotalk.com
- Spam domains
123seotalk.com
digital-kaos.co.uk
planetlotto.co.uk
talk-scotland.com
uknationallottery.net
- Spam accounts
User:192.88.166.35(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:82.40.36.192(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:Buckyuk uk
User:192.88.158.211(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- en:Special:Contributions/192.88.166.35
- en:Special:Contributions/82.40.36.192
- en:Special:Contributions/Buckyuk uk
- wikt:simple:Special:Contributions/192.88.158.211
--A. B. (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
wiki.d-addicts.com
Hundred's to thousands of external links goes out to "DramaWiki," which is the wiki page for "d-addicts.com" - a massive torrent site for downloading pirated Asian television shows and movies. Continually linking to this site is like the WikiMedia family supporting piracy of Asian copyrighted content.
--Hyo-son Kim 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a small difference in count between 'd-addicts.com' (623 records) and 'wiki.d-addicts.com' (618 records):
d-addicts.com
wiki.d-addicts.com
I don't see obvious spamming of the link (maybe one or two accounts). But if it is linking to questionable anyway .. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- d-addicts.com is a giant forum. I don't know whether even linking to the wiki is a good idea. Someone should take a closer look through the forum though, I only had a few minutes. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
623 links for d-addicts and 618 links for wiki.d-addicts.com isn't spam? What concerns me more is that d-addicts actively participates in the pirating of copyrighted material. You guys are promoting their actions or at least giving the impression that the site is legitimate to wikipedia users by adding so many of their external links. This is absolutely wrong. I'm wondering becuase it's Asian copyrighted material you guys are taking such a lackadaisical attitude? Are you going to list "The Pirate Bay" as reference for all the movies, television shows, and software that get listed on the Pirate Bay site as well? Ultimately, with all those links to d-addicts and wiki-addicts, you guys are giving the thumbs up to copyright infringement. --Hyo-son Kim 20:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
D-addicts as of November 7 20:40 just looking at their most recent posts on their front page:
- d-addicts.com/forum/viewtopic_66788.htm <-- torrent link to download "Worlds Within"
- d-addicts.com/forum/viewtopic_67154.htm <-- torrent link to download "Koizora - Episode 06 HD" (high defintion even)
- d-addicts.com/forum/viewtopic_67153.htm <-- torrent link to download "Ryuusei no Kizuna ep04"
- d-addicts.com/forum/viewtopic_65418.htm <-- torrent link to download "Beethoven Virus [Eng Subs] (Ep 1-14 of 19)"
on their Beethoven Virus page it says "*PLEASE MAKE SURE TO DOWNLOAD THE RIGHT VERSION --- CHECK OUR WIKI"
- d-addicts.com/forum/download.php?id=29833 <-- the subtitles for Beethoven virus
Their entire site revolves around copyright infringement / torrents to download the latest Asian movies and television dramas. --Hyo-son Kim 20:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant was, that I did not see any accounts who were obvious spamming (as in IPs or named accounts who have as a main purpose inserting links to this site; I did alredy say that linking to this site may be questionable, which is also a good reason to blacklist it. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added then. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
visitchn.com and related
- Sites spammed
visitchn.com
handandaily.com
kaixin110.cnblogs.com
- Related domains
yanjiecao.com
- Spammers
User:202.105.139.204(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- and more.
See WikiProject Spam item. Has spammed since the bot report. MER-C 07:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added the first three. Is yanjiecao.com spammed as well? --Erwin(85) 20:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- We usually add related domains preemptively because there are countless cases of spammers using them to circumvent blacklisting. MER-C 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough added yanjiecao.com as well. --Erwin(85) 21:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- We usually add related domains preemptively because there are countless cases of spammers using them to circumvent blacklisting. MER-C 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
terryananny.com
terryananny.com
- Spammers
User:74.14.122.125(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:74.14.123.52(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:76.64.153.215(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:76.64.154.169(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:74.12.183.120(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:74.14.120.153(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:76.64.159.232(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- and more
See WikiProject Spam item. MER-C 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added. I assumed it would end when the articles would be deleted. Apparently it didn't. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. --Erwin(85) 21:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
architectour.net
architectour.net
User:94.162.129.99(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:213.188.207.158(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:94.162.128.161(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:80.218.231.150(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
--Jorunn 16:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed most of today's spammed links. There are (or were) a lot of links that were placed earlier which is why I did not request a blacklisting immediately. I agree with Jorunn. If this site contained images of architectural examples I'd say the links are relevant. As it is now, this site is of no added value to wikipedia. EdBever 18:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I saw one link in en.wikipedia that possibly wasn't inserted by one of the above shown IPs, and in the top 57 Wikipedias there are a few links that probably was included in translations from one of the bigger Wikipedias, where the link had been spammed by one of the IPs above. --Jorunn 18:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Added If there are links which do not add to the article where they are placed, they should be removed. Probably that's all of them. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Chinese IP spam
39pf.com.cn
51qimo.com
91wxds.cn
airgreat.com
beautyspacenter.com
bjxps.com
bjxytx.com
chieftech.net.cn
chinakain.com
clamandarin.com
cnjcy999.cn
cqdingyao.com
dyhhly.cn
dxjbzy.com
fsjbkf.com
gztao.net
hblc123.com
helenarubinstein.cc
hyshusongdai.com
ja010.com
jiushun.com.cn
jxfilter.com
ks8code.com
law-ssc.com
mlkq.com
qm8881.com
sako-or.cn
shanghaianfeng.com
shanghaihuayu.cn
tfkfw.com.cn
tkglc.net
ts-ky.com
vipnikeshoes.com
wellforcesbj.com
wxboleda.com
xcbzy.com
xhhome.com
yyxingke.com
zhuoyueenglish.com
User:123.116.155.30(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- Targeting MediaWiki.org and enwiki. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- More:
baili-rollforming.com
beijing808.com
beijingtour.cc
chuangliandsj.com
chun-dance.cn
dragonorient.com
gd96.com
hzxyck.cn
shengxinan.com
sssty.cn
vaot.com.cn
yanzifei.cn
zhefiry.com
zibohengtai.com.cn
User:Yan330207108
User:Yanzifei
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
More:
31kv.cn
User:Vshipin001
— Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Example.com
example.com
--Erwin(85) 21:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- en:example.com, it is used for examples. even I used it (or example.org) sometimes. -- seth 00:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- ? This is more often a vandalism issue than a spam issue. But I would say, the 'use' is most of the time not deliberate abuse, and there are many occasions that it is of use. If this is really abused cross-wiki, then it should only be added for a short time, otherwise this would give disruption (heh, the 4th button (resp. bold, italics, underline, a 'globe') in my standard edit-box gives this link!). Could you please expand on this Erwin, why did you want this blacklisted? (until such time, I mark this as Declined). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to remove this. It was just an example and not a serious request. --Erwin(85) 19:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- lol! -- seth 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to remove this. It was just an example and not a serious request. --Erwin(85) 19:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
trunc.me
trunc.me
URL shortener. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Proposed removals
|
|
This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted. |
WikiJava.org
wikijava.org
Please remove the domain wikijava.org from the blacklist. WikiJava is a wiki about Java, it contains any kind of information about the programming language and all the related technologies. It is an important external link for Java_(programming_language). People interested in getting more information about Java will definitively appreciate this link.
Thanks, --Dongiulio 10:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore its entire contents are as written with the GFDL license as WikiPedia. I think the blacklisting should be removed. Thanks, --Hedoluna 10:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the domain was spammed, as clearly shown in the bot report. Furthermore, I belive it fails WP:EL (can't double-check right now, as the site is down), so I can't even recommend that you seek whitelisting. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I spammed the domain because I didn't know about the spam policies. I should have checked first, I'm sorry, now I am aware of the rules and I'll act in accordance.
I believe that links to WikiJava would be a benefit for Wikipedia for, in depth, techy information about Java topics. For example in the following articles (I had to break the links because of the spam filter):
- Wikipedia:Singleton_pattern#Java should contain a paragraph including the http://www. wikijava.org/wiki/Singleton_Factory_patterns_example which is a new (GFDL)implementation, that enables to make a singleton out of any object.
- Wikipedia:Apache_Maven could contain a link to http://www. wikijava.org/wiki/Starting_a_Java_project_with_Maven_2, which contains an explanation on how to run a first Java application in Maven.
- Wikipedia:Generics_in_Java could contain a link to http://www. wikijava.org/wiki/Unchecked_Variables_tutorial, which clearly shows how generics should be used and which errors to avoid.
- Wikipedia:Reflection_(computer_science) could contain a link to http://www. wikijava.org/wiki/Class_and_static_Method_Reflection_example, which contains an example of implementation of the reflection in Java.
- Wikipedia:Java_Cryptography_Extension (referred on Wikipedia by 7 articles but it doesn't even exist. - I plan to write it) could contain a link to http://www. wikijava.org/wiki/Secret_Key_Cryptography_Tutorial, which shows how to use the Java Cryptography Extension for a simple secret key encryption message exchanging tool
I could continue this list, Also considering that WikiJava will soon contain complete categories with in depth details about all the topics about programming which an encyclopedia can't cover at the same level of detail.
I believe WikiJava matches the WP:EL that you mentioned. In particular in the What to link section all the three points are met. In the What should be linked section the points three (amount of detail) and four (meaningful, relevant content) points are met. In the Links normally to be avoided point 12 (links to open wikis without substancial background) looks like a measure to grant the credibility of the information provided and WikiJava has absolute credibility since its contents are 100% verifiable by anyone by simply compiling and executing the code published.
I don't know why the website was down for you, that shouldn't have happened. I hope you'll get to the site the next time you'll attempt to. Please let me know if you get more problems accessing it.
Thank you, --Dongiulio 10:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- There was definitely reason to blacklist this URL. However, if it's as useful as you say it is established Wikipedia editors will want to link to it at some point and request removal. Until that time I see no reason to actually remove it from the list. --Erwin(85) 20:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought we were _all_ editors in WikiPedia. I'm asking the removal, too. --Hedoluna 13:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hedoluna and Dongiulio, the link was clearly spammed (and as you both are new accounts, here and on en; Dongiulio even added the link on en; and both have on these wikis no further edits than concerned this link), and added to inappropriate places (we are not a linkfarm and such). I suggest that you both seek contact with a wikiproject (for en, see en:Wikipedia:WikiProject, or look on some talkpages of pages where you think the link is of interest, the wikiprojects have often a banner on top of those pages; other wikis have similar systems), and ask editors there if they think the link is an asset.
People always skip the intro of en:WP:EL ("... If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it..."), but always jump to en:WP:ELYES. They also forget the policies that are the basis of that guideline (e.g. sections in en:WP:NOT). We are writing an encyclopedia here.
Yes, we are all editors here, but if there is abuse, we ask editors who have been around for a longer time (established editors) and see if they think the information is appropriate. I am sorry, but until such time, again, Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
roomsinscotland.com
roomsinscotland.com
I had my site blacklisted due to the fact i had submitted it to multiple wikis, i didnt realise this would be considered spam, i just thought they would be independatly reviewed(by each wiki) and if relavant then added and if not then declined. After looking over the guidlines it seems that there is an automatic ban if there are links accross multiple wikis, i assume this is why i never recived a warning or an information on the problem. If the links are not allowed on other wikis then i can accept that, but i dont know why they should be removed from the En Wiki as well and therfore would like to be on the whitelist for en wiki. thanks
- There's nothing automatic; the domain was blacklisted after widespread linking. Our projects don't need to link to that domain, so I fail to see why this request should not be Declined — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok i am even more confused now, i think what you are saying is that because there were multiple pages from the site that had a link in wiki then that is considered spam and therefore blacklisted. Again i just assumed if you had a relevant page on your site that had relevance to a topic on wiki then you could submit it to an editor who would determine both its relevance and quality and then add or remove the link. Its not as if i am sumbitting hundreds of links each month or repeatadley submitting the same links (which i would consider to be spam actions). I assume when you say that the projects dont need to link to the site that the pages should not have been added in the first place, which although i would disagree is fair enough, but then the issue is that the editors were wrong to add the links in the first place which is not my fault, i mean they should know the guidlines better than i ever would. So to then blacklist the site because of that seems a bit harsh.
- Please bear in mind this is about encyclopaedic content. With due respect "roomsinscotland" might fit well in a web directory but not in an encyclopaedia. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
General note
A general point to note for all members of Wikimedia - You may not believe you are being used for advertising, however the reality is that you are, big time. If you don't like this association and truly don't want to clearly favour some site over others you must remove all links to profit making web sites. I quite expect some curt retort on this comment or for it to be deleted but it is a fact, whether you like it or not. --09:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)~ — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pepperpot9999 (talk)
- We are aware of the fact that the wikis are being used for advertising, this blacklist is a part of the work to try to stop some of it. Lots more work is done locally on the wikis. Banning all links to comercial websites isn't an option. We need the information some of them provide, and we need to be able to link to the official website of companies etc. in the articles about those companies.
- If you know of a link you belive has been spammed, please feel free to tell us about it, or just remove it yourself (please state the reason for the removal in the edit summary). --Jorunn 11:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, most are not the subject of abuse. But some undoubtedly are, and the fact that this results in some sites being blacklisted while superficially similar sites are not generally comes under the heading of "things you should have thought of before you tried to use Wikipedia for self-promotion". JzG 07:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Commercial links are very often appropriate, when added with the right reason. If the link to a company homepage is added to the page about the company, then that is a correct use. Also, some companies provide resources on their sites which are very welcome as references, as they generally contain well researched and correct information. However, if the additions to company websites is to promote the content, or strongly suggests promotional use, then that is what we call abuse, and such links are not welcome. We also realise that sometimes appropriate links/links added in an appropriate way can be a victim of that.
- On the other hand, non-commercial sites can just as well be spammed. This may include links to non-profit organisations, public organisations like libraries, musea and governmental sites. These may not get money directly from selling, but get money from people visiting their site and who like their cause, get money depending on how many people visit their site ('measure of the efficiency of the advertising/promotion of the website' e.g. by webmasters), or to promote a certain politician (or his view) to give them a better chance in an election.
- If one wants a final solution to any form of using wikipedia for promotion, add '\.' as a rule to the blacklist, and let everything that is needed first be checked by the community for whitelisting. But I think that would be against the spirit of Wikipedia. In the meantime, we do our best to catch as much as possible .. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
scififantasyfiction. suite101. com
suite101.com
I wanted to use this article as a reference, but it is blacklisted. Where can i find out why? I would guess it was added to random SF pages as an external link, but it is still a reliable source for referencing. Can it be delisted? I cannot even insert it here for this request!
- suite101.com has been blacklisted for some time after lots of spamming. Please see archived requests. This is Declined until the issues which led to the initial blacklisting and subsequent denials for de-listing are addressed adequately. Please do some research to show the situation has changed. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's a matter for the local whitelist, where it is already being discussed. JzG 07:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
YouPorn.com
YouPorn.com
It's not possible to add the link to the en:YouPorn article because of this black listing (maybee a request for a local whitelisting is more appropriate?)? Is this a very problematic site with lot of spam linking? I've also raised a RFC on the issue at the talk page nsaa 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was blacklisted after User:COIBot/LinkReports/youporn.com. I see plenty of abuse there; I suggest making a request for whitelisting instead. Declined, I think. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Opus-info.org
opus-info.org
opus-info.org is a multilingual site with lots of documents of interest about en:Opus Dei. It has been added in each corresponding wiki language. Please remove it from black list or add it to white list. Gabuzo 10:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, we know it was added in many wiki languages, that's why it was blacklisted. See User:COIBot/XWiki/opus-info.org. It appears not to meet the sourcing guidelines prevalent in most language projects. JzG 12:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please consider that this site is in 8 languages and provides very valuable testimonies, as you can see in
www.opus-info.org/index.php?title=Category:Opus_Dei_info
A link to this site was added in the "Links to opposing views" part of article.
Consider also that the organisation has much more money than detractors and owns plenty of DNS entries that all point to the same site with the same content in different languages. Why should readers cannot get more informations in their own language? Why would it need to be limited to 5 different languages? Gabuzo 16:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please consider that this site is in 8 languages and provides very valuable testimonies, as you can see in
- OK, you are now suggesting that when this one is blacklisted, other sites are going to be added as a replacement? We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm or an internet directory. As such, Declined --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, you are now suggesting that when this one is blacklisted, other sites are going to be added as a replacement? We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm or an internet directory. As such,
- Remove Opus Dei from blacklist. Wiki is becoming useless because of these nerd behaviours like blacklisting important sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.104.207.232 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2008
- 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 encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia 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) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
asyncop.com
asyncop.com
can't post because the "page is blocked by a spam filter" are you kidding me?? asyncop.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.177.128.81 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 October 2008.
- I can't find this in the log. It probably was added around April 30 this year?
- Looking at the history of one of the articles on en.wikipedia where someone, editing from the same IP as you used to post here, inserted the links asyncop.net and multicore.ning.com yesterday, I found that User:Asafshelly had been inserting some asyncop.com links there.
asyncop.net
multicore.ning.com
User:Asafshelly
User:148.177.128.81(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- It was added to the blacklist in this edit: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spam_blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=979194 --Jorunn 11:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Per [6], this should have been blacklisted on the English Wikipedia. Once it's added there, I'll remove it here. There's no evidence that the spamming was cross-wiki, and no evidence that it will be in the future. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed per [7] — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Per [6], this should have been blacklisted on the English Wikipedia. Once it's added there, I'll remove it here. There's no evidence that the spamming was cross-wiki, and no evidence that it will be in the future. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Holocaustresearchproject.org
Holocaustresearchproject.org
I'm using an essay on this website as a source for w:Lyndon LaRouche, but can't add a link because it's on this list for some reason. It's the Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team, a research project run in collaboration with some British academics, including the history department of the University of Northhampton. My use of the source material is being challenged in part because I can't link to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Was added per [8]. Have those concerns been addressed? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's certainly not being spammed anymore, and the site in general has some good material on it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- In a subject as contentious as LaRouche I'd be inclined to steer clear of all but the most impeccable sources anyway. JzG 20:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- The source is good. He's Matthew Feldman, senior lecturer in the history dept of the University of Northhampton in the UK, a specialist in fascism, and coauthor of Fascism: Critical concepts in political science, 2004. The material I'm using as a source is an essay he wrote about LaRouche for a conference in Berlin, and it's reproduced on this site because the archive is run in collaboration with the university he works for. I can use it without a link, which is what I'm currently doing, but this being a LaRouche article, several people want to be able to read it for themselves. That's why I'd like to post the link. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure it is not spammed anymore, it is blacklisted. If there are still concerns then I suggest to leave it on the blacklist, but if all concerns have been addressed, then it can be removed (but readded if spamming continues ..). If this specific document is OK, and there are no problems with it, then I think whitelisting this specific document on the server for this reference is a better way. As you say 'in general has some good material on it' does not sound good enough to me, especially with the history of spamming .. Would whitelisting sould good, SlimVirgin? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed - whitelisting the appropriate URL for that use on the appropriate wiki sounds like the preferable course of action here. Declined as such. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whitelisting the link would be great. It is http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/essays&editorials/larouche.html Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed - whitelisting the appropriate URL for that use on the appropriate wiki sounds like the preferable course of action here.
being-ones-self.org and myegotimes.com
being-ones-self.org
myegotimes.com
These two sites were blacklisted because of scroogle.org, which is itself no longer blacklisted:
#The following sites are being used to get around the scroogle.org spam blacklisting (above) being-ones-self\.org myegotimes\.com
I'm figuring they were probably missed when scroogle.org was de-blacklisted. --Sapphic 03:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see how these sites have any utility to our projects. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. Looks like the same site in many respect to me (certainly exactly the same frame on the page). Far more importantly where would these sites be usefully linked in the project? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how their potential use is at all relevant. Those two sites were put on the blacklist because of their relationship to a completely different site, which has since been removed. There's no longer any reason for them to be on the blacklist. The requirement to show utility makes sense when there's an actual question as to whether the site should still be blacklisted, but in this case it's entirely clear that the original reason for blacklisting them no longer applies. --Sapphic 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Those two sites were added by Mark here and here:
#These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site\. namebase\.org wikipedia-watch\.org google-watch\.org cia-on-campus\.org scroogle\.org yahoo-watch\.org #The following sites are being used to get around the scroogle.org spam blacklisting (above) being-ones-self\.org myegotimes\.com
The original sites were commented out by Eloquence here, but the bottom two were skipped:
#These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site\. # Per talk,these redirects appear to have stopped in mid-2006. Commented for the time being. -Eloquence #namebase\.org #wikipedia-watch\.org #google-watch\.org #cia-on-campus\.org #scroogle\.org #yahoo-watch\.org #The following sites are being used to get around the scroogle.org spam blacklisting (above) being-ones-self\.org myegotimes\.com
Then Mike.lifeguard removed the commented-out entries here, but again the bottom two were skipped, leaving us where we are today. --Sapphic 18:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Could somebody please just remove this cruft from the blacklist, so I can stop checking this page? Or explain why we need to keep blacklisting these two sites that were quite obviously left in by mistake when the rest were removed? Or explain how — despite all appearances to the contrary — this was actually not a mistake and those sites were intentionally left on the blacklist for some reason? --Sapphic 01:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Given past abuse, I see no reason to remove these without good reason. As is, there is no stated benefit to our projects. If there is some reason to link to these domains you may request whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use. Declined — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Given past abuse, I see no reason to remove these without good reason. As is, there is no stated benefit to our projects. If there is some reason to link to these domains you may request whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use.
Okay, in the words of the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, here is why the sites should be removed:
- If these are no longer redirecting, then they should be removed from the blacklist, which explicitly exists for the purpose of blacklisting spammers. The addition to this list in the first place was problematic, but we avoided creating a separate list for the time being since there weren't enough compelling reasons to do so. But if Brandt has truly stopped redirecting his sites, there is no reason for them to remain listed, whatever our dispute with him may be.--Eloquence 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[9]
Immediately afterwards, he commented out all of the sites except the last two, which (given the comment above them) was an honest mistake. Much later, Mike.lifeguard removed the commented-out sites, but again missed the last two in the group. Now that good reason has been stated for removing these two sites, complete with links to diffs, can they finally be removed? --Sapphic 21:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
No. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it seems his sites do still redirect. I'm still investigating the others; they may get re-added. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that works for me too. As long as it's consistent. --Sapphic 22:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe clean up the formatting of the group though? So if they ever get removed again, it'll be clear that they all go together. Like:
# These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site. namebase\.org wikipedia-watch\.org google-watch\.org cia-on-campus\.org scroogle\.org yahoo-watch\.org being-ones-self\.org # see scroogle.org myegotimes\.com # see scroogle.org
That work? --Sapphic 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- No. The other domains don't redirect, just those two. They redirect to golokbuday.com, thus it is Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Well that works too. Now it's just the comment that should be updated to reflect the current reason for blacklisting, since it no longer has anything to do with scroogle,org or the others. And since this is here for a different reason than spam (as indicated by the comments by Eloquence above, and confirmed by Mike.lifeguard just now.. unless the site is a spam site as well as redirecting) and presumably other items in the blacklist may be here for that reason as well, perhaps they should all be moved to a specific sub-section of the list, with a brief explanation (comment) as to why they're there even though they might not technically be spam sites. --Sapphic 23:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
teletextonline.de
teletextonline.de
Please de-blacklist this domain. I have plans to stop the use of www.teletext-online.de.vu in next time and will only use www.teletextonline.de. This is the reason why I have changed the link on all teletext articles. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.180.125.236 (talk)
- Was added after cross-wiki spamming as shown in the report. Are you the owner of the domains? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- The IP inserting the links shown in the reports was changing the link teletext-online.de.vu to teletextonline.de. That can be seen as a service to the wikis, but the link teletext-online.de.vu seems to only have been inserted by IP's from the same range as the IP who was inserting teletextonline.de, and the IP posting this request for removal of teletextonline.de from the blacklist. For instance on no:Tekst-TV links to the website has been inserted 3 times: 8 July 2007, 18 August 2007 and 6 November 2008. And now someone has started inserting the link teletext-online.de.vu again on de.wikipedia.
teletext-online.de.vu
- Some IPs which has been used for inserting the link teletext-online.de.vu, there are probably more:
User:84.180.97.36(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:84.180.95.120(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:84.180.120.100(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:84.180.117.163(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:84.180.117.211(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:84.180.122.238(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:84.180.103.59(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:84.180.82.253(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:84.180.82.205(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:84.180.111.24(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:84.180.125.190(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
--Jorunn 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Added then. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
badastronom(?:er|y)\.com
I can't get the search tool to work to describe why this was added, but I (as an en.wikipedia admin) find it appropriate to use badastronomy.com to source a statement made by the site owner. (The other site, badastronomer.com , apparently no longer exists.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- The archives don't show where it was ever suggested for the spam blacklist. It appears that someone conflated badastronomer.com and badastronomy.info , and possibly badastronomy.org . — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Must be old, I don't have any data on additions of the link (which is for more than a year). I would support de-blacklisting of this stuff if the reason can not be found. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The search, which I finally got to work, shows the only "badastro" discussions here were in October through December 2006, from a request from en.wikipeida. But badastronomy.com seems never to have been suggested here, although it may have been suggested there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I vaguely remember this though I can't now find the discussions. As I recall it was primarily blocked because it was a redirect site. (Goes to http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/) -- SiobhanHansa 17:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But some content is back on the "main" site. — Arthur Rubin T C (en: U, T) 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can fix the link I used over on en: to point to a non-blacklisted mirror. — Arthur Rubin T C (en: U, T) 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
See the original request and WP:UNID. The domains still redirect; Declined — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
picturesofaruba.com
picturesofaruba.com
Please remove picturesofaruba.com from the blacklist. It may be used as a link on the Aruba wiki's. The reason to blacklist the domain is not known.212.108.13.131 14:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Due to past problems with excessive linking to this domain, I do not believe this request should be fulfilled. We de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. If such a situation arises, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and this domain may well be removed.
- Until such time, this request is
Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
losethegame.com
losethegame.com
hey, i'm not sure whether this site should be removed from this list, but i am trying to use a radio interview stored on this site as a source. i have added some info to the Jonty Haywood article based on a kerrang radio interview which is stored at losethegame.com/kerrang.mp3. the blacklist says the site has been "encouraging page vandalism which includes this URL". i have been browsing the site a lot recently and didn't notice anything like this but i'm not certain. what should i do? 61.5.149.20 18:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
hey again, sorry just realised that my wikipedia account doesn't work here. my wikipedia username is jessi1989 if you want to contact me, and it's the Jonty Haywood article on wikipedia that i'm trying to source. thanks. 61.5.149.20 18:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- You should unify your account. Once that's done if you are logged in on Wikipedia, an account will be automatically created for you when you come here and you will be automatically logged in. Thanks. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The site was blacklisted because it encourage vandalism of Wikipedia via a Firefox plugin (though that is no longer hosted there), and because it was repeatedly added by numerous accounts. Ohnoitsjamie 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- hi. the reason i could find for the blacklisting was "encouraging page vandalism", there isn't any mention of spamming. were you the blacklisting admin? anyway, if the original blacklisting reason no longer applies would it be possible to get it unblacklisted? i'm making some article improvements and would like to link to content hosted on that site. thanks 61.5.149.18 12:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- sorry i still haven't unified my account! it's jessi1989 again :) 61.5.149.18 12:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- The site's owner has a history going back to 2006 of spamming links to his site on Wikipedia. There's no good reason to unblacklist it. Ohnoitsjamie 19:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Declined per Ohnoitsjamie. Please request whitelisting for a specific use if necessary. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- The site was blacklisted because it encourage vandalism of Wikipedia via a Firefox plugin (though that is no longer hosted there), and because it was repeatedly added by numerous accounts. Ohnoitsjamie 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Upon request, here some more background: ANI453, User talk:LoserNo1. If there's legitimate need to use the link, request whitlisting. This request is still Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Upon request, here some more background: ANI453, User talk:LoserNo1. If there's legitimate need to use the link, request whitlisting. This request is still
to those new to this discussion: there have been some more discussions on this topic here, here and here. below is an account of everything i have found out so far:
1) in february 2006, w:user:Jonty303 added links to various websites hosted on losethegame.com to 14 articles ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ). while many of these were inappropriate, it is apparent that there was at least some reasoning behind adding each one. an administrator, w:user:Ohnoitsjamie, appears to have reverted jonty303's edits based on jonty303's complaint on ohnoitsjamie's talk page (here). it is hard to know exactly what happened as jonty303's talkpage has been deleted. what's important though is that he made no further attempts to add any external links and made his last edit on wikipedia a two days later. jonty303 was not blocked, and the website was not blacklisted.
2) in october 2007 (over 18 months later), losethegame.com was added to the meta spam blacklist, not for linkspam, but because the website apparently had a section (which no longer exists) encouraging wikipedia vandalism (link). since that time, there has been a discussion at w:talk:The Game (mind game) about whether this website should be mentioned (not necessarily linked to) in the article, the reasoning being that it is discussed in some of the article's sources. i shall leave it to the reader to judge the consensus there. the only argument against it being mentioned is that it is currently on the blacklist. various users have voiced their strong opinion that the website should be mentioned in the article and have been blocked or warned by ohnoitsjamie for doing so (ANI453, User talk:LoserNo1, posted by mike.lifeguard above as "background" for the blacklisting). neither of these users added any external links to any articles as far as i can see.
3) i recently heard an interview on kerrang radio (the reason i got involved in this mess) which was relevant to two articles, w:Jonty Haywood and w:The Game (mind game). i found a recording of this interview hosted at losethegame.com and tried to link to it but couldn't because of the blacklisting. i therefore came here to request unblacklisting since i have a legitimate use for this link, and the given reason for the blacklisting "encourages wikipedia vandalism", does not seem to apply any more.
4) ohnoitsjamie commented above that the site owner has been spamming links to his site for the past 3 years and that this is why it is blacklisted. mike.lifeguard then declined my request based on this comment. i have since asked ohnoitsjamie to provide diffs showing evidence of this 3 year spamming campaign, but he has, as yet, been unable to do so. he did eventually admit that the site was not actually blacklisted due to spamming after all (here).
5) mike.lifeguard responds to this by stating plainly that his decline rationale is correct, but without stating what this rationale is or explaining why it is correct (here again).
the way it appears to me is that, whether this site was rightly or wrongly blacklisted in the first place, the justification no longer applies. people who have argued for unblacklisting in the past are now being used as "evidence" to support the blacklisting itself. and throughout all this ohnoitsjamie has been heavy-handedly opposing unblacklisting, potentially due to a grudge dating back to jonty303's 2006 edits. please could we get some more input into this discussion so that we can reach a real consensus based on the relevant facts and policies? thanks Jessi1989 (Talk) (sorry, having unification issues) 61.5.149.24 19:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Jonty (Jonty303/Kernow) has been trying to get his person site on Wikipedia for years, either directly or via friends (suspicious accounts that pop up, make a few edits to other topics, then all of the sudden express a keen interest in unblacklisting a site with very little useful content; e.g. this one). The site was originally blacklisted for hosting a Firefox plugin that randomly loaded Wikipedia pages and inserted "makes you lose the game." Though Jonty has removed that plugin from the site, there is still no valid reason to unblacklist a site that has nothing of value to any Wiki project. As for me not providing a detailed history, incident report ANI453, which Mike already posted, provides numerous examples. Admins may contact me directly for further info. Ohnoitsjamie 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- hi, sorry but i cannot see that either of those users (rabidfoxes & loserno1) added any ELs to any articles, or requested unblacklisting of that site. let me repeat what i said to you on my talkpage "can you point to any examples of a) the 3-year spamming campaign you mentioned and/or b) other users who have made unblacklist requests for this site? i can't find any. the two users mike linked to didn't add any linkspam. if this whole thing has as much history as you keep making out you should have no trouble finding a plethora of examples, surely." in additon to this, i've looked through the talk page history of the user:kernow you mention, where he says that he is the owner of the site. looks like you blocked him for the content on his site, which he removed, and 3 admins reached the consensus to unblock him, as well as telling you to "back off" due to a personal involvement (diff). i'm not sure what personal involvement he means, but this would certainly explain why you are being so difficult about this. also, why do you keep asking admins to contact you directly about this. the discussion should be here, on this page, for everyone to see and take part in. admins, please, rather than contacting ohnoitsjamie in private about this, can you post your comments here for the community to see? so, jamie, as before, 2 things please: diffs of linkspam and diffs of previous unblacklisting requests (neither of these are provided at the ANI report, or in the contributions of rabidfoxes, that you linked to). thanks Jessi1989 (Talk) 61.5.149.94 13:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a diff for you, and a policy diff that is relevant here. Ohnoitsjamie 15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- ok this is just getting ridiculous now. again, a diff that shows neither spamming or unblacklist requests, just some guy claiming to be the site owner and discussing it on the game article talk page. and then you link to a wikipedia essay and call it a policy. asking you to back up your statement with diffs is not wikilawyering, you're misusing the term. this discussion has gone beyond frustrating and simply become laughable, i'm going to try to find someone more helpful who isn't personally involved to talk to. Jessi1989 (Talk) 61.5.149.84 17:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Declined again. The website is useless to the encyclopaedia, it is not a reliable source for anything, it has been spammed by its owner, and your canvassing of this discussion does not really help over much. Jonty Haywood has also engaged in vanity spamming both personally and by proxy. Please put down the stick and step away from the horse carcass. JzG 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- ok, i give up. for the record, if you'd looked into the request before declining it, you'd see that i'm not trying to use the website itself as a reliable source; it hosts an interview from kerrang radio, which is a reliable source, and i want to link to the recording. the site was linked by its owner to 14 articles solely in feb 06, and he wasn't blocked for this. he was blocked by ohnoitsjamie this year, and then unblocked by the consensus of 3 admins, one of which told ohnoitsjamie to back off for being personally involved. none of the users ohnoitsjamie has claimed to be the owner's socks ever added a single external link or unblacklisting request, from what i can see. oh and i didn't canvass this discussion in any way, i made a friendly, untargetted notification asking for uninvolved opinions. i suggest reading the guide to canvassing if you are unsure as to the distinction. anyway you "win", i'm going to give up here. just thought i should make it clear that everything you've said above is 100% untrue. i'm very upset by the way you've all treated me :( Jessi1989 (Talk) 61.5.149.7 12:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently you didn't read what we have been saying. Please request whitelisting for a specific use on a specific wiki. I don't know how to be more clear than that. Go request whitelisting. Whitelisting is your friend. Go request some. Please. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- mike, i did read what you've been saying about whitelisting, but you must not have seen what i said in response. i have now requested whitelisting as this discussion is going nowhere, but surely jamie & co will just get it declined based on the same false information that lead to the decline here. all the information given by jamie was false, you then declined per him, then you declined per some background links which showed no evidence of linkspam, and then jzg declined again citing completely false information. i wanted to resolve this issue here first. also jamie already told me that it "will not be whitelisted". but yeah i've given up and gone for whitelisting anyway so we'll see what happens. Jessi1989 (Talk) 61.5.149.180 17:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- hmm guess what?... :( Jessi1989 (Talk) 61.5.149.180 17:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently you didn't read what we have been saying. Please request whitelisting for a specific use on a specific wiki. I don't know how to be more clear than that. Go request whitelisting. Whitelisting is your friend. Go request some. Please. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- ok, i give up. for the record, if you'd looked into the request before declining it, you'd see that i'm not trying to use the website itself as a reliable source; it hosts an interview from kerrang radio, which is a reliable source, and i want to link to the recording. the site was linked by its owner to 14 articles solely in feb 06, and he wasn't blocked for this. he was blocked by ohnoitsjamie this year, and then unblocked by the consensus of 3 admins, one of which told ohnoitsjamie to back off for being personally involved. none of the users ohnoitsjamie has claimed to be the owner's socks ever added a single external link or unblacklisting request, from what i can see. oh and i didn't canvass this discussion in any way, i made a friendly, untargetted notification asking for uninvolved opinions. i suggest reading the guide to canvassing if you are unsure as to the distinction. anyway you "win", i'm going to give up here. just thought i should make it clear that everything you've said above is 100% untrue. i'm very upset by the way you've all treated me :( Jessi1989 (Talk) 61.5.149.7 12:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- ok this is just getting ridiculous now. again, a diff that shows neither spamming or unblacklist requests, just some guy claiming to be the site owner and discussing it on the game article talk page. and then you link to a wikipedia essay and call it a policy. asking you to back up your statement with diffs is not wikilawyering, you're misusing the term. this discussion has gone beyond frustrating and simply become laughable, i'm going to try to find someone more helpful who isn't personally involved to talk to. Jessi1989 (Talk) 61.5.149.84 17:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- About the whitelisting, I am not sure if an mp3 is a good link, not a format what is widely recognised.
- You keep arguing that there is no spamming of your link. Strictly spoken, that is true. However, when I look at the records, then it was added a couple of times to wikis, in particular to en.wikipedia and cs.wikipedia (i.e. here 'multiple projects'). If that would have been to w:en:The game (mind game) and w:cs:The game (mind game) (or whatever the exact location of the wikipages is), then that would have been fine. However, it was only added there once (on en)! The other 4 additions I found are to w:en:Sonic the Hedgehog (character), w:en:Petals Around the Rose, w:cs:Hra (hra) (cs version of w:en:White Bear Phenomenon, at least the link links to an example of this, though I don't think it is fully appropriate there) and w:en:George W. Bush. Those 4 (or at least 3) are totally inappropriate additions, which are in a way that is promoted by the webpage (fitting in the strategy: "A much less subtle technique involves leaving reminders in places that will be seen by others more than yourself. This could include graffiti, notes & signs, forum posts, messenger names, answerphone messages and much more."). The fact that it was done by 4 seemingly unrelated accounts (w:en:User:Darthkovac, w:en:User:85.241.109.116, w:cs:User:Li-sung, and w:en:User:71.160.26.185) does not make a real difference. That type of abuse is what needed to be prevented (from the wikipedia point of view, it is simply vandalism, though I understand that it is in line of the game), and as blocking individual acocunts would not stop this, meta-blacklisting is the only way to do that. I guess this is here a third Declined deblacklisting, I'll have a look at the whitelist request as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Whitelisting has been requested, as appropriate. Request for removal is Declined at this time. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Troubleshooting and problems
|
|
This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems. |
archive/log searching
Hi!
1. How should the spam archive search be used? At the moment I can't get any results. Is it broken (and has this something to do with our recent archive movings)? If so, perhaps we should link to a google-search as an interim.
2. Is this tool searching the archive only or logs too? What about my log-search-tool [10]? Should it be transferred on our toolserver or may it remain where it is? I suppose to place a link to that tool on this page near the archive-search-tool.
3. I just had a look at [11] and saw that the archive is inconsistent now. What should we do with that? I guess it should be somehow consistent because search tools could depend on that. -- seth 15:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- The search tool is hopefully not dependent on how the archives are named. I can get results currently though (and I could get results when we used the subpage convention). This is tied to your third question. Pathoschild is enamoured with his "Standard archival system". However much I hate it, to keep the peace we should all do what he says and use the YYYY-MM convention. sigh
- The archive search tool only searches archives. I'd be happy to see your log search tool run on the toolserver; you can request an account at TS/A.
- — Mike.lifeguard | talk 15:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Ok, but ehm, if I search for "mustangranch.com" I want to find Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008/01#mustangranch.com, but I find nothing. What am I doing wrong?
- 2. TS/A#de:user:lustiger_seth
- 3. So shall we leave this like it is? and what about that?-- seth 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Subpages for the logs should not be changed (consistency with that was the reason I had moved the archives to subpages too, but Pathoschild didn't like that). I'll move the remaining subpage archives, and delete redirects wherever possible. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone should look at the source code for Eagle's tool, or if he's around, someone should ask him. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Asked him to double-check the tool is set properly. I'll poke him again in a while to make sure he did it. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
regexp for nimp.org
\bnimp\.org\b recently was modified to \b(on\.)?nimp(\.org)?\b, but that matches the same as \bnimp\b. i think it is not a good idea, to block all websites containing that short string. which websites to be blocked were not matched by \bnimp\.org\b? -- seth 12:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- That was intended to be short-term, and it didn't work in any case, as he started using plaintext in his summaries. I forgot to revert before going to bed, so I'll do that now. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
User: namespace abuse
|
|
This section is for archiving User: namespace abuse. |
abrah.am
abrah.am
\babrah\.am\b #temp to stop Poseurtech
See VVV's - this is userpage spam. Not sure if this should stay or not. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Removed I think. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
|
|
This section is for archiving Discussions. |
Local spam (seeking local volunteers)
Similar to the XWiki catching of domains, the linkwatchers (the off-wiki bots that do the actual parsing of the diffs and extraction of external links; reporting the results to IRC) also catch local spam. Until a couple of days that just resulted in on-IRC remarks, but I have now made the bots save that data to off-wiki files on the computer where they run on (data is saved 'per wiki, so a file for en.wikipedia.org, a file for de.wikipedia.org .. etc.'). They tend to catch new links added by users who focus on one link/domainhost, links only added by IP accounts and links that are added by a small range of IPs(they report only when they pass the threshold and not again, what happens after that will have to be retrieved from local searches or with the help of COIBot).
The information there is pretty sensitive, and I think that it is not suitable for unfiltered on-wiki publication; it does contain quite a percentage of good links, and good editors, which I think have to be removed by hand. However, from a list of 80 links from a report on en.wikipedia I did add over 30 to en:User:XLinkBot (and some rubbish might just have to go directly to the local or meta blacklists). I have made the filter a bit stricter, but it will probably still contain quite some good stuff.
If local admins are interested in having a copy of the data, then please give me a sign (maybe I should make a list somewhere, say User:COIBot/Local or something like that) where people can give their username, a link to a wikipedia e-mail page, and which wiki(s) you'd like to have the list from. I will then try, on a 'regular' basis, to send that list to those editors (bit depending on size and how many volunteers per-wiki, etc., but I am thinking once every so many days; I might in the end even try to write a bot to perform the mailings). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(Please feel free to notify local editors on local noticeboards or appropriate talkpages if you feel that that may result in volunteers who are not active on meta, but who may be interested.) --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- You know Beetstra, I'm interested. I will notify some Spanish Administrators if they are interested on.
- Dferg (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am interested in nl: wiki. Perhaps some other admins as well. EdBever 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you are interested, just add your name to User:COIBot/Local. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Criteria for removal based on procedural error
There should be a modification to the criteria for removal at the top of this page, to account for situations in which a site is on the blacklist because of some kind of mistake, e.g. a typo, a member of a group of sites that was missed when the others were removed, etc. Having to demonstrate benefit to the project doesn't make sense in these cases; it should be sufficient to demonstrate that a mistake was made. --Sapphic 21:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Something like the equivalent of speedy deletion for articles. A separate queue (section) to deal with cases of typos, mistakes in the regular expression syntax (e.g. missing \b or not escaping . or whatnot) or just plain getting the domain wrong (see Freudean slip or Spoonerism) as well as cases like being-ones-self.org and myegotimes.com above. Maybe "speedy review" is a better term though, given the apparent outcome of the discussion about those particular sites. --Sapphic 22:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- This doesn't apply to your example. Furthermore, we do not need a separate process to handle this. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
It does apply to the example. Those sites should have been removed when the others were removed. The only reason for them to stay is because the others should apparently be added back. They're a group, they should be on or off the list together. If you're going to insist that "benefit to the project" be a required criteria for getting any site off the blacklist, then there'll be no way of fixing typos or other kinds of mistakes. So the criteria needs to be different in cases of mistakes. --Sapphic 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe that's not a completely different process, but it should be noted as a different set of requirements for the current process. I'm trying to avoid the situation like we had above, where a few admins (yourself included, Mike.lifeguard) dogmatically stick to the "benefit to the project" criteria without actually assessing the situation properly. You made a mistake in insisting on the requirement to show benefit, since it didn't actually apply in that case. Some way of emphasizing the type of removal request would be useful to avoiding those kinds of mistakes in the future. --Sapphic 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Leaving them blacklisted wasn't an error, as we've established. Where errors are made, they are fixed ASAP - which is absolutely not the case here. Do not re-open this discussion, you are disrupting our workspace with this. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Stop closing this discussion, it's not your workspace, it belongs to me as well, and I'm not disrupting it. I'm carrying on the discussion. It was an error. It was also an error (perhaps, not sure what was going on back in March 2007 with the redirects) to remove the original sites. Those two errors have ended up (mostly) canceling each other out, but regardless, it was a mistake to break up the group of sites. You're presumably planning to fix that by re-adding the other sites, which is fine by me, but at least acknowledge the initial mistake(s). I suspect you're irritated with me because you've already labeled me as some kind of supporter of these sites (which I'm not) and you're letting that colour your attitude here, but if you step back and re-evaluate the situation, you'll see I'm simply trying to point out and resolve a technical/procedural matter, and am trying to suggest ways to avoid it in the future. Chill out, realize I'm actually trying to be helpful here, and stop being so antagonistic. --Sapphic 17:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think trying to come up with rules or regulations will help. We should be pragmatic about it. If you really think that there should be criteria be my guest to explain why, but let's not continue in another discussion regarding this particular case. --Erwin(85) 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think there should either be criteria for it, or admins should stop sticking so dogmatically to the criteria that does exist. It turns out that the particular case that's now resolved (and will be mentioned no more) indeed was a slightly different case, but one that also needs to be dealt with. Some items on the spam blacklist are apparently listed not because they've been spammed to one of the projects, but because they're doing something else nasty (like redirecting traffic from wikimedia to some other site, or posting banned or illegal material.) They should probably at least be noted as being different, so it's clear that different things need to be checked than in the usual spamming case. --Sapphic 00:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- ...and in the spirit of DIY, I'll be happy to help track down history on the currently blacklisted sites, to see which ones are listed for non-spam-related reasons. --Sapphic 00:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think there should either be criteria for it, or admins should stop sticking so dogmatically to the criteria that does exist. It turns out that the particular case that's now resolved (and will be mentioned no more) indeed was a slightly different case, but one that also needs to be dealt with. Some items on the spam blacklist are apparently listed not because they've been spammed to one of the projects, but because they're doing something else nasty (like redirecting traffic from wikimedia to some other site, or posting banned or illegal material.) They should probably at least be noted as being different, so it's clear that different things need to be checked than in the usual spamming case. --Sapphic 00:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sapphic, let me give my 2 pence here. If we blacklist a group of sites, then that is because there is, at that moment, abuse (including preventing abuse), the site is bad, or should simply not be used on this project at all. If one of these sites is then contested by established editors, and it can be shown that that one site is of use to multiple projects here, then that one site is removed here. That does not mean that we stopped the abuse on that one site, it is only that that site is of use to the project, and blacklisting causes (too much) disruption to the proper use of the link. But that does NOT mean that the other sites that were blacklisted at the same time are appropriate, or that there is appropriate use for the other sites. So 'site a was removed, so site b should have been removed as well' is certainly not a proper reason for a 'speedy removal' (or whatever you wan to call it; you may want to have a look at w:en:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). I don't think that the original question 'is this site useful' is a proper question, and certainly should be applied in all cases. As goes for the first site removed (it may have been abused after the removal, only blacklisting was not a useful solution to stopping that), that goes for the other sites as well (as they were blacklisted for the same/similar reason), and the sites were blacklisted for that reason.
- For all the sites on this list, there are, or there have been problems with it (note that you will have a very hard time to show if a site was spammed 4 years ago and blacklisted for that reason if there is not a proper reason in the log). That includes spamming, misuse or probable misuse, etc. etc. It should be noted in the log why a site was blacklisted (for the very old items that may be missing a bit, but there clearly were problems with it, and if the site is of no use to the projects then there is no reason to remove it). IMHO, there is no use in creating a list of pages which are 'listed for non-spam-related reasons': if a site has a use on the projects, and local whitelisting is not a solution, then it can be removed if no proper reason for blacklisting can be found. I there is no proper reason why it was blacklisted, and it is not used anyway, then it can just as well stay here. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- That last part is pretty stupid. The sites on this list should undergo periodic review, to make sure they still belong. Otherwise, this list will just become gradually more difficult to maintain, and decreasingly relevant. Since you all seem so set in your ways and are clearly no longer interested in helping the projects, but are instead more interested in preserving your bizarre little way of life here, I'll stop "disrupting" your discussion area by trying to engage in genuine communication, and let you get back to not actually reading what other people have to say. So sad. --Sapphic 15:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- If the log is fine, there is not a lot to maintain. Periodic review is fine, and we nowadays put some things on there temporarily until things have been repaired on the external site. Removal of sites may also mean that we create new work for us, when disruption after that starts again. There is a lot of work here that needs to be done (unfortunately), if we also have to review, then that only adds to our workload. Most of the stuff here is here because it was pushed to multiple wikis, how would you review if that site (that can not be pushed anymore) can be removed? There obviously is no pushing of the site anymore.
- IMHO, the best way of reviewing a link is when (established) editors on (a) project(s) want to use the site because it contains important information. Upon that we generally respond quickly by removing the site. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)