Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2013-09

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

---

---

url shortener — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Alternate domain of URL shortener ow.ly. MER-C (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Added Added — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Werieth (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Added Added Thanks — billinghurst sDrewth 06:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

link redirect service — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Added Added — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

---

---

Added Added — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Added Added — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Added Added — billinghurst sDrewth 07:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

Can yo unblock http://ukcmilhist.freeforums.org/index.php it is an academic forum, see sample threads for evidence

• http://ukcmilhist.freeforums.org/sas-in-british-popular-culture-t622.html SAS in popular culture

• http://ukcmilhist.freeforums.org/post3406.html#p3406 a review of Stuart Slade's and Richard Worth's argument on carriers

Declined The domain is not globally blocked as far as I can tell, unless they are under a weird regex. I do see that there is an entry on enWP \bfree(?:forums|mosquitoringtones)\.org\b, so you should seek a whitelist for your domain at w:en:Mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I would note that it would be unusual for a discussion forum to be allowed as they are not authoritative sources (see w:en:Wikipedia:Citing sources) and you would be expected to cite the authoritative source instead. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Official tourism site for Daugavpils, Latvia. Blacklisted in February 2007 after an IP user added the link to the Daugavpils articles on several Wikipedias. English Wikivoyage prefers to link tourism sites over governmental sites, but the blacklist is prohibiting it. The danger of removing it seems minimal. LtPowers (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case, adding it to the local whitelist is more appropriate. --Glaisher [talk] 07:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No doubt the other language Wikivoyages would like to use it too, and in fact I don't see any reason why a Wikipedia might not want to link it. Is there any valid reason to keep it on the blacklist? LtPowers (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed Removed as the official tourism site — billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

I'm a German Wiki User and I want to write an article about address certifications because you cannot find many information via google. For this I used addressdoctor.com and want to mention it as a source. I do not use the pages described here The blacklist says: list: meta blacklist

 \baddressdoctor\.com\b
 log entry: \baddressdoctor\.com\b # Wutsje # addition; see User:COIBot/XWiki/addressdoctor.com

Could you please unlock the page?

Removed Removed — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

I need to add it to voy:it:Vouliagmeni but it has been globally blocked. Temporary I've added it to the local whitelist to allow me to save the page, but I would know if it can be unblocked globally, so I can keep the local white list as clean as possible.

PS As per your above suggestion, if they can't be remove from global blacklist, I'm going to add the following site in the local whitelist:

• www.33southbackpackers.com to be used in it:voy:Città del Capo
• www.lapiazzetta.lecce.it to be used in it:voy:Lecce
• www.backpackers-refuge.biz.ly/ to be used in it:voy:Salonicco

--Andyrom75 (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

---

---

As this is all to be used on wikivoyage, I would suggest to whitelist these there only. There is no reason to keep local whitelists clean. These sites were globally spammed, and they have no value whatsoever outside of Wikivoyage, and for some of these sites, there will be no reason not to expect the spamming to continue (spammers do come back as has been shown over and over, it is their bread and butter). Here Declined. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 12:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There are 15 language versions of Wikivoyage, which means 15 different whitelists. LtPowers (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Which is better than wikipedias having to blacklist it individually. There are always consequences for spamming. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And the spamming was stopped by this action, which was likely taken years ago, possibly by someone who had no direct affiliation with these web sites. Now it's time to stop making more work for projects that can make legitimate use of these links. LtPowers (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there are about 800 different mediawiki wikis, 15 is still just a small portion of it (and I don't know whether all 15 wikivoyages have use for this link, that lapiazetta.lecce.it is of interest to the italian wikivoyage is clear, but whether a farsi wikivoyage would have an article on it may be questionable. Having it on the whitelists is of no further consequence, there is no reason even why a (specific) link (e.g. lapiazzetta.lecce.it) should not be on 100 whitelists whereas the more wider domain (lecce.it) would be globally blacklisted - that is still not a reason to remove the domains from the global blacklist.

Regarding 'the spamming was stopped by this action' - yes, of course: It is blacklisted, it simply can not be spammed to any wikimedia wiki. As I said above, there are many examples of links of commercial entities or other general spam which re-appeared days after the links were removed from the blacklist (on en.wikipedia, a spammer enlarged their sock-farm with another handful of accounts about a week after some rogue admin removed the link from the blacklist because they needed one specific link somewhere on one specific article ..). That shows that they still show an interest in being linked, it pays being linked from Wikipedia, having your hotel linked from WikiVoyage is still a chance that people will visit the page the link is on, and that they follow it. Wikivoyage is a spam-magnet by itself, but I think there is a bit of an unwritten code here on the blacklist that we do not blacklist unless it expands outside of wikivoyage, the rest of the spamming is 'your' problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What's this about Wikivoyage being a spam magnet? Why not treat all of the Wikis equally? This is appalling. LtPowers (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Even though Wikivoyage has policies (Be fair, Don't tout, Tone) about listings, it basically allows people to advertise their hotel/attraction, to some extent. Maybe that's what Beetstra meant. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clear up any possible confusion about Beetstra's first sentence: "...different Wikimedia wikis" (FTFY). There are many more MediaWiki wikis, some of which also use this blacklist actually. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As was said in the similar conversation below, please add them locally to your Voy: domain whitelists. Also to note that biz.ly is a url shortener and shorteners are usually blocked on site due to their ability to be abused. Re 'spam' there is a greater tolerance to commercial links at the Voy: than is allowed at the other sisters, however, that the wikipedias and other sites are spammed with these commercial links is enough to get them globally blacklisted. If you think that the wikivoyages should have the scope to have a whitelist that applies to multiple Voy: sites, then I would suggest that you should start that conversation at bugzilla: and see what may be possible technically. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Hello administration. Our site is not so small and we don't know why we are in the Black list ? We have never had spam. Please consider our request to remove our domain from the list of spammers. It is possible that someone has deliberately made us harm and implemented spam from our domain, but we have never done this and do not intend to engage in it.

Our company is based in Mountain View such a Google. Also we doing graph/atlas technology, but absolutely not black SEO or something another.

Hi. The report about why the site was added to the blacklist is at Special:PermanentLink/4045101#slinky.me_qwiki.com_Citespamming and was done at the request of one of the WPs. This is not to reflect on the site, it is to prevent the continued abuse by whomever was adding the links. At this point of time, I don't see that the site is of valid addition, so I am hesitant to remove the site from the blacklist. I would suggest that you discuss this matter with the person who requested the addition (via that link). — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Declined no further conversation — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

why bestmusic.ro is blacklisted? Please remove it form blacklist, i need to use links from this site on this page http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXX , but i can't --//-- Dani XXN (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This was added to the global blacklist per this discussion at enwiki. The site was also proposed removed from blacklist in 2011, that request was denied here. I would normally suggest asking for local whitelisting of the specific links you need, I notice that the whitelist at ro.wikipedia isn't operative though. Finn Rindahl (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The whitelist looks operative, and should be. That it isn't being utilised may be they haven't had requests. Still best that a request is made to admins at roWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Declined no further conversation — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

Unblocking this site is necessary for seeing the huge backlash against Yahoo's forcing the "neo" format upon its users, which is universally hated and despised. Please see my citations to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahoo!_Groups&action=submi page which were not able to be saved. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.170.171.202 (talk)

I am confused. I am not certain where you are expecting to use the links, Yahoo Groups do not seem links that we would use in an encyclopaedia (see w:en:Wikipedia:External links and w:en:Wikipedia:Citing sources) If you think that they should be used, then you should seek a whitelisting of the url at enWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am expecting to use the links in the 'Yahoo! Groups remodel 2013 "neo"' article. The use of links showing feedback of how users hate neo is most appropriate for the neo article.

You will definitely need to address your request to English Wikipedia, they are encyclopaedia, not an opinion site. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Declined no further request eventuated — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

I can't find any indication why reverbnation is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. A bot User:cyberbot II appears to be using this list to tag existing articles on the English Wikipedia. Even the en:ReverbNation article has had its links removed. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/backlinkscount.py?title=ReverbNation Toolserver shows 193 incoming links to en:ReverbNation

I believe that this is a false positive, and appears to be limited to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, the the website is useful for musical artists as it displays popularity rankings, by genre, locally and nationally. Thank you 98.154.254.81 17:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If it is removed from the blacklist, then the bot that forced this problem should be required to restore the links that have been removed to satisfy its warnings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I found the site on the local list on en.wikipedia. Check here. -- Tegel _(Talk) 20:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It was added to local list in August 2012 [1]. Please see spam report. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the owner (of the bot) has the ability to restore, once the problem with the list is resolved. ReverbNation has its own template en:Template:Reverbnation so blacklisting the domain will be confusing for newer contributors. Shame, the website is useful for Indie stats -- my suspicion is that the website caught a virus or was temporarily hacked. How to proceed? White listing specific pages is inappropriate for a website that owns a wiki template. 98.154.254.81 02:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, ReverbNation is blacklisted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist rather than https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I guess while I was trying to learn about whitelisting and blacklists, I wound up here by mistake thinking this was the global list. Moving the discussion to the Wikipedia. 98.154.254.81 07:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Declined no global listing — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

I can't find any indication of why educationupdate is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. User:cyberbot II Added a {{Blacklisted-links}} for http://www.educationupdate.com/archives/2006/May/html/car-metamorphosis.html, a URL for a reference to the w:Education Update newspaper. It seems to be blacklisted in error. The article is perfectly fine, not SPAM at all, and the paper's "About Us" (http://www.educationupdate.com/about_us/index.html)page seems quite legit. RossPatterson (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC) (on en:)

• blacklisting report. Links were being added rapidly, apparently, by socks. One site was delisted because it was a reputable site. If there has been "spamming," it can be difficult to get delisting even for a quite reputable site. One route is to request local whitelisting for a specific link that's needed, such as for en.wiki, MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. If enough of these are approved, it may then be easier to get the site removed from the global blacklist. My comment here is not a comment on the web site in question, I have not investigated it. By the way, you can always give a complete blacklisted URL, more simply, by delinking it using <nowiki> tags around the URL, or just leave out the http:// part. Most browsers will go right to the page if you paste it into the address bar. --Abd (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the nowiki hint. Updated. RossPatterson (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • That was years ago, and there are plenty of by-lines that aren't from w:Jacob M. Appel. Please de-list educationupdate. RossPatterson (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• I've looked at the web site. It's a print education newspaper, and looks like Reliable Source for Wikipedia (that's confirmed below).

w:Gary_Shteyngart the article with the blacklisted warning, displaying a prominent working link to the blacklisted page.

• There was a whitelisting request on Wikipedia at [2]. The request was granted. Notice: request filed October 12, granted November 4.
• Recommend delisting. This blacklisting is causing damage. From the discussion, a single user in 2010 was adding links relating to a notable individual, w:Jacob M. Appel. See [3] for a note in that article where a link would have been appropriate, and I'm sure it was attempted. Most editors will not bother to go to the local whitelist page, it's not wiki. In 2010, COIBot showed many links that had been added by trusted editors. I have looked at the backstory, it's not good, but that's moot. The link is to a reliable source, generally, as affirmed in that whitelisting request. Please delist. --Abd (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Please delist. I posted about this at EN. No one there has identified any new issues. That incident of "Jacob Appel" spam does not look like a valid basis for blacklisting the domain. --Orlady (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed Removed would seem to have been caught up in other link addition, and the site that had the issue has local block in place, so can be removed and monitorign will continue — billinghurst sDrewth 10:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

I'm not sure if/how this URL got marked; I found only \bpassion\.com\b with this (very hard to find!) search tool: https://toolserver.org/~seth/grep_regexp_from_url.cgi I must say I found it virtually impossible (or extremely time-consuming) to find out what's going on and what is to be done in these cases. How to determine if a blacklisted link is on a local or a global list, for example. The tag message contains links, but not to the spam blacklists themselves, only long texts talking about them.

The English Wikipedia article on Gerard Majella has a tag message saying: Below is a list of links that are blacklisted: http://www.jesus-passion.com/SAINT_GERARD_MAJELLA.pdf

When I tried to edit and save that link, because the original is not working, an error message came up with this line in it: The following link has triggered a protection filter: passion.com

Here's the complete line I wanted to insert there under Further Reading:

• [A short biography from 1904] and a complete one from 1907: Saint-Omer, Edward, "Life, Virtues, Miracles of Saint Gerard Majella" PDF

The first link is a web page, which contains the second link, which is a PDF document on a different site. Both look normal to me --Geke (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, you are linking here to it, which suggests that this is not blacklisted here on meta. Maybe it is locally blacklisted? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 11:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

jesus-passion.com is caught by blacklists: [w:en] \bpassion\.com\b, [w:ta] \bpassion\.com\b so you will need to get enWP to amend their regular expression via w:en:Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Declined as not globally listed — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2013-09&oldid=5897763"

Category:

• Talk archives