Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2010-01

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

Domain/URL redirector



This was caught being added to multiple articles on en, however one addition of this redirected 3 times thru 3 different domains. See also my Talkpage on en.wikipedia. Thanks--Hu12 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

URL shortener confirmed -   Added. Thank you, — Dferg (disputatio) 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

urlpass.com



url shortener Track13 0_o 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

SAP-related spam

Spam domains










Google Adsense ID: 8472373166099331


Related domain



Spam accounts





Cross-wiki spam

--A. B. (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


  Added --A. B. (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Domain/URL shortener



Same as tinyURL. Site is in french. reported on the en.wikipedia blacklist. --Hu12 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added, thank you. — Dferg (disputatio) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Museo Publications, LLC



Cross wiki spam
All have been cleaned up. thanks--Hu12 00:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  Added. Thanks. --Erwin 10:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

urlal.com



URL shortener. MER-C 04:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added. Thanks. --Erwin 10:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

turl.ca



URL shortener. MER-C 08:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added. Thanks. --Erwin 10:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

bizkickz.com





More UGG boots spam, locally on meta too [1], [2]. I'm adding it in few minutes. — Dferg (disputatio) 10:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added — Dferg (disputatio) 11:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

shrt.st





URL shortener. Spammed on enwiki--Unionhawk 20:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

More Domain/URL Redirectors









More tripple redirector. Similar to this previosly case. Hope its not a trend in redirects. Caught several IP's adding;

See report on my talk page (en.wikipedia)--Hu12 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Note shrt.st was already added.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, --Hu12 05:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

discussionshome.com





Cross Wiki spamming
Also
See en.wikipedia spam blacklist report. --Hu12 05:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Created, then spammed a blogspot domain in order to curcumvent blacklisting on en.Wikipedia. See another blacklist case --Hu12 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  Added both.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots





Spammed in userspace.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)






(already locked)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added - this is not the first time nor the first account that spams this. I'm adding only uggbootszone.info since the other domain was added previously. — Dferg (disputatio) 22:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Background:

moladi.net



Three years of abusing Wikipedia for promotion. See WikiProject Spam item. MER-C 04:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added Shameless spam on the Haiti Earthquake disaster and other natural disaster-related articles. EdBever 10:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removals

  This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted.

openmap.ro



This site uses the openstreetmap.org data, which is free (in the Wikipedia way), and adds some interesting data for Romania, like the Public transport map. Also, it allows for easier adding of markers. The difference can be seen in articles about the public transport, like this one. The site was added based on a bot report, because most liks to the site were added by the (presumed) site owner, which is an active participant in the openstreetmap.org project. I sent him an email asking him to refrain from further bulk-adding links to the site and I am confident that he will understand the constraints of this project. Thank you, Strainu 14:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting Cipt2001 for us.   Removed - the domain has clear utility for our projects.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Mike.--Strainu 19:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

estaticos.20minutos.es



Please I do not know why the domain estaticos.20minutos.es is in the spam list. This domain belong to 20 minutos a newspaper from Spain which is published under free license, and links are specially used in catalan Wikinews. I do not understand which kind of abuse has been reported, but I think that it should be used in order to cite some sources of information as external links in catalan or spanish wikipedia. Can anyone explain it or solve this problem in order to increase verifiability of Wikipedia? Thank you. --Bestiasonica 10:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This was blacklisted per User:COIBot/XWiki/estaticos.20minutos.es. You can whitelist pages as needed for sourcing - though it seems most of the spamming was on eswiki. The site currently returns a 403, so I cannot evaluate this any further.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not an expert but I do not understand what is a 403 and I don not understand how whitelist the pages. Happy New Year! --Bestiasonica 23:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that a removal here would not hurt. As Bestiasonica says, it is a Spanish newspaper which publishes under free license and it is used as sourcing at Wikipedia and Wikinews. I think that we can remove it and keep watching the additions via the bot reports... Thoughts? — Dferg (disputatio) 10:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. This wasn't the only link that was added in the last reported edits and it seems it just happened to have a picture that someone wanted to spam. --Erwin 10:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Erwin. Given that there is no opposition to the proposal I went ahead and   Removed it. It can be useful to our projects. Link additions will be monitored trough the bot report. Thanks, — Dferg (disputatio) 12:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

aerobaticteams.net



Please check this site and ensure that it is not spam site. Many of the articles of Military Aerobatic Teams section at wikipedia uses the aerobaticteams.net like source. I don't understand why this site is blacklisted. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.155.239.130 (talk) diff — Dferg (disputatio) 12:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That domain was added on this blacklist per this discussion back in October, 2008. The domain seems quite problematic too on enwiki because they have locally blacklisted too the same domain (see [5], [6], [7]). It is blacklisted too at ar.wikipedia. I'd suggest not to remove the domain right now here but to request local whitelisting on the relevant wikis you want to add external links to that domain, as I did on es.wikipedia. Comments welcome. Best regards, — Dferg (disputatio) 12:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Excessive multi-project abuse. Also see the discussion here
Mass multiple project spamming, abuse, Several declines, vandalism of reports related to aerobaticteams.net, and multiple attempts to circumvent blacklisting. Additionaly, the requesting IP above also was used in spamming this site.--Hu12 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I recomend adding the following;







These are being used to circumvent the blacklisting. --Hu12 17:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  Done & request for de-blacklisting   declined — Dferg (disputatio) 12:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

globalflight.net



This is one of the most comprehensive sites for Frequent Flyer Programs and contains, among others, the only complete worldwide listing and deep links to all FFPs, plus other unique features, such as the "Who with whom?" application. We suspect having been blacklisted by a competitor.

Sorry, we're all human here.
This was blacklisted per User:COIBot/XWiki/globalflight.net. If there's utility for our projects in linking to this domain, I suspect whitelisting for those cases will be sufficient.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Mike -   Declined — Dferg (disputatio) 12:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

tumblr.com



This was added as a url shortener - as far as I know, it is not. It is a blogging/microblogging platform. RockMFR 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, that should not have been added.   Removed  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

shakespearssister.co.uk



Hi there, I am writing regarding shakespearssister.co.uk. It has been blacklisted. I feel I have been personally targetted by some admins, just because i kept adding the site. They claim that the site is unofficial and fake. Please look at the site and see for yourself. The site is fully endorsed and controlled by Siobhan Fahey (of Shakespears Sister). You can even check her albums, and the link is listed on the inlay card. The registration of the domain is in my name, Anthony Hemingway, as i purchased it on behalf of Siobhan, as im her webmaster. I can even provide you with Shakepsears sister's management email address to validate this site. Many thanks.

Link: http://www.shakespearssister.co.uk

I have also been accused of spam, which is very unfair, im just trying to get the correct links on here. Most of the article on Shakespears Sister and Siobhan fahey takes information from Shakespears Sister.co.uk, and it is not referenced.

Other users have tried to also ad the link back, but admin Momusfan and Jxillian (?) just keep removing it for perosnal indifferences.

evidence: http://www.cargorecords.co.uk/artist/5136 Fahey's current label, links to official site, which has been blacklisted.

92.0.153.204 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly it is not meta blacklisted, as its linked above. --Hu12 06:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah ok, well is it possible to get this added back as Shakespears Sister URL, or at least referenced? 92.0.153.204 10:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  Deferred to English Wikipedia Blacklist - The domain is not blacklisted globally (here) but it is on the English Wikipedia project. If you want that domain removed you should ask here. Thanks for your understanding. — Dferg (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

discussionshome.com



Hello Wikipedia support,

I am sending you requesting to remove the domain (http://www.discussionshome.com) from your local or global spam blacklists. I tried to add an external link to the article (2010 Africa Cup of Nations) -English version- having the tournament stadiums information, and pictures which are not found on wikipedia. Somebody (I think the author of the article) has been trying to remove any link I add, & I think he has added this domain to the spam blacklist.The external link of Angola 2010 Africa Cup of Nations Stadiums info., and pictures can be found at: http://www.discussionshome.com/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=1089

Thank you for your timeThe preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.201.241.205 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 11 January 2010 .

Well clearly it isn't blacklisted globally. However, there is a request to do so above, so please join us there.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The requestor is one of the many IP's spamming discussionshome.com.--Hu12 06:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Created, then spammed a blogspot domain in order to curcumvent blacklisting on en.Wikipedia. See (above) and blacklist case. Clearly bad faith.--Hu12 06:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed so -- and the domains got blacklisted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

centraldorap.com



Hello administrators, I would ask you to withdraw from the spam-blacklist the address "centraldorap.com", since it is not spam and is an reliable guide to the Wikipedias. Thanks. ChristianH 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It was added in 2006 as it was spammed back then (request). I guess "unreliable" is a typo? If so, I guess there's no harm in removing it now. --Erwin 16:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The "spam" was for a long time ago. Central do rap is a news site, like any other, I see no problems to keep it free, it is because as a reference for various events. Sorry for the mistakes of English. ChristianH 18:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed the previous case and the site in question and I see no reason we can not consider the request from ChristianH. As far as I could saw, it is a rap news related site. ChristianH is a high volume editor at pt.wikipedia and if he wants to use it as a source I do not see any issues here. I'm in favour of the removal. If in ~1 day nobody opposes, I will be removing the site from the list. Thank you, — Dferg (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Removed — Dferg (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

modsandhacks.net



Hello administrators, I would ask you to withdraw from the spam-blacklist the address "modsandhacks.net", since it is not spam.The website is new and has many projects, finally i am not the owner of the site simply was just doing a friend favor, i was trying to help him get his websites name spread. The problem is i tried editing two wikis "Wii Homebrew" and "PS3 Linux". As i was knew to wikipedia i did not know that i should not have done two wiki edits however the links were highly relevant and definitely(not spam). At first i didn't understand why it was removed because my links were highly related to my topics, however after i read up and realized that i should not have edited more than 1 wiki. I do apologize for that and if removed would not not make that mistake again. Thank You Sud The preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.234.32.244 (talk • contribs) — Dferg (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

  Deferred to enwiki - Hello. The domain modsandhacks.net is not blacklisted here but it is on the English Wikipedia project. You should ask on en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals to request a review. Thank you, — Dferg (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

www.HelloNingbo.com



Hello, I am the new webmaster of a city guide website called HelloNingbo and I have already started updating quite a few pages. Today HelloNingbo is PR6 and quite popular amongst expats and visitors in Ningbo-China. This site used to be listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ningbo .
Unfortunately the webmaster that left last December told me the link was regularly removed by a competitor listed on the same page and after several times, he began to be fed up and also removed the other one. The result of course was that there were both finally banned. What a pity to be so childish! Not only the webmasters were both punished but readers also missed some chances to get even more content. But we cannot go back and what has been done cannot be changed today...
About 3 weeks ago everyone celebrated the new year with new goals in personal life and business careers. So I would like to catch the opportunity to restart on a good basis and hope we could have this link back. I have only one word and write here that I WON'T remove any link EVEN if mine is removed. But if anyone was to remove the link again, I hope I could get in contact with a contributor for help in locking the link.
I appreciate the work of all contributors and perfectly understand that you have lots of other things to do instead of interfering in these kind of conflicts. This is why I would like to express here my sincere apologies in the name of the whole HelloNingbo team and would like you to consider it as a silly mistake and that people did time for it. I hope the Wikipedia team can give HelloNingbo a last chance to be listed and I thank you very much for your time and concern.
Paul - Webmaster: www.HelloNingbo.com - January 25, 2010

  Deferred to English language Wikipedia — We are sorry but we can not help you here because the domain is not blacklisted here, but it is on the English Wikipedia. You should ask on en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals for consideration. Best, — Dferg (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Dferg for your help and time. I posted my request on the English page. Kind regards, Paul The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.12.28.98 (talk • contribs) — Dferg (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


Discussion

  This section is for archiving Discussions.

wmf4.me / enwn.net

Ran into Mike_lifeguard during a #wikimedia-strategy, he asked me to pop an email off to info-en-l explaining what wmf4.me is and why it shouldn't be black listed. Who then told me to post it here. Hopefully the rat has found it's cheese...

So first, domain: http://wmf4.me/ ( http://enwn.net/ is an alias, the original name, in the process of changing all the titles).

Short and sweet version: It is a URL Shortening service (w:URL Shortening http://wmf4.me/42EEb ). Anyone can create a shortened link, but it is somewhat user un-friendly at the moment. There are only 3 methonds. #1 is by the automated RSS->Twitter proccess, #2 is the bookmark ( http://wmf4.me/bookmark.php ), #3 is a gadget we made for English Wikinews ( mentioned here: http://enwn.net/5e231 ). Method #4, the venerable "web form" is in development.

Most importantly, it is designed for Foundation sites only. It is setup with a white list of domains that are allowed to be shortened (IE: Wikipedia.org, Wikinews.org, Mediawiki.org, etc). Anything outside of the foundation URLs, the Shortener will throw an error on. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

How will it be used? I don't understand the need for URL shortening. Why don't you just add the real URL, which will tell you something about the site you're linking to? In the case of WMF projects you can also just use an internal link. --Erwin 09:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Initially this started for use on Twitter. I don't see any use for this in main space usage, as you said, use the real URL. This has its uses outside of the main space. For example we use them at n:WN:REPORTS because we write the report on wiki then email it out. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Shortened URLs are evil, but for use in confined spaces (like twitter) the evil can maybe be justified. However, the reason we blacklist URL shorteners is different: the possibility of abuse. However, this one allows links only to WMF-owned domains. Ordinarily, I would say that's acceptable, even if actually using the shortened URLs is a bad idea. Keep in mind that on-wiki is not a confined space, and shortened URLs should never be used on-wiki. However, it seems that ShakataGaNai can and did (deliberately [8]) add some which evade blacklist rules. That, I think, is unacceptable.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I evaded the rules (Being the only person that can, magical DB power and all), for a valid cause. Linking to that site was blacklisted long while ago, ok, they spammed. I was linking to them NOT TO SPAM, but to help facilitate a proposal. We had no idea how long it would take this group to get around to removing fh.net from the blocklist. ::shrugs:: I don't know what you want me to say. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You could have locally whitelisted the URL. I don't think it's necessary to blacklist wmf4.me if and only if the links can only point to Foundation projects. Clearly that was not the case in the past. Will it be in the future? Meaning that any existing redirects to non-WMF sites will be blacklisted and such redirects can never be created in the future. --Erwin 09:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It isn't that they can't be added, ShakataGaNai does and will have access to do it for the forseeable future. I assume he won't be circumventing more blacklist rules...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

large log page

Hi!
html-rendered Spam_blacklist/Log is very large and so it's a kind of boring to view that page waiting for the "edit"-buttons.
I suggest to

  1. move Spam blacklist/Log/Pre-2008 to Spam blacklist/Log/Archive (or Spam blacklist/Log/Old or something similar) and
  2. move the parts 2008 and 2009 of the present log Spam blacklist/Log to that archive.

Some of my scripts (and probably some scripts of some other users) refer to /Log/Pre-2008, so that page should remain a redirect. Any objections? -- seth 10:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New regex behavour

Contrary to the warnings about ^ and $ we're probably all familiar with, those will soon match against the start & end of URLs. This change was introduced in rev:60869. I don't anticipate we should change old regexes, and this won't be extraordinarily useful for most use cases, but we should be aware of this for the future.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
Thanks for that information, but ^ will still be useless, because it would result in regexps like /http:\/\/^example.org/. This change affects $ only. -- seth 10:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

polices

So who exactly polices this list? Who's to say some "member" comes in, bans his competitors claiming they were causing problems for him, and continues to police the entries he has now taken over. Sounds pretty far fetched huh. Yeah, right. With the weight google gives your listings it is exactly the type of thing a certain Australian reseller would do to gain advantage over his more successful US competitior. All one can hope for is natural law prevails and he is scanf out of here.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.144.58 (talk)

You presume that links get blacklisted because someone complains. That is not the case, links get blacklisted because they are abused. Although your scenario is a possible case .. that does not mean that all is done to avoid that, or that the editors here would not be listening when editors show such concerns. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What's in a Name?

Maybe someone can tell us why Wikipedia still refers to it as a Spam Blacklist, when it also contains sites that are critical of Wikipedia, or which raise concerns of blatant censorship (such as the serendipty site)? Are the guardians of WP so afraid of criticism that they have to resort to calling it spam? IJAC 124.120.138.184 05:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are bug reports out for renaming this page. Regarding 'resort to calling it spam', I'd ask you to read en:WP:AGF and en:WP:SPAM - spam is not only about what is linked to, it can also be who are using it. We have had owners of very respectable sites massively pushing their site in order to have it promoted. That is what we call spam, and that is why we blacklist such sites sometimes. If you need it, there is always the whitelist on every project, and if you make your case telling why you need a specific page (not the main domain, of course), and why you think it makes a good source, then whitelisting is often not a problem. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Apparently the spam blacklist prevents linking to blacklisted sites in edit summaries as well as pages themselves. Is this a feature or a bug? It is really annoying not being able to use url shorteners in edit summaries - this is an ideal use for them. Steel 21:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

it's a feature. -- seth 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's also a feature to prevent articles from pointing to sites that are critical of WP and which have been banished to Blacklist hell.124.120.138.184 06:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing paranoia on WP with short link providers, which really gets on my nerves, because you have blocked them ALL. tinyurl.com, bit.ly ... even though some of them are used by spammers, well what else can we use if Google Books and all use these long URLs? That's not our fault, is it? Sometimes it would come in handy to say (cf. bit.ly/whatever) even in the article summary, but this gets always auto-blocked. It sucks! All of you know well that the summary has a max character limit. So if the link is too long, I will always have to open a pseudo-discussion thread just to get this huge URL placed in full? Well, what a Brave New World this has become! -andy 77.190.32.112 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi!
If you want to use a webpage as a reference, you should use the ref-tags. -- seth 10:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Andy, if you look in one of the addition-requests above, then you see exactly why we blacklist url shorteners on sight. It may be surprising, but we regularly catch spammers who use these sites to circumvent blacklisting (even worse, they spam not the real site, but the redirect site, in hope we 'forget' to do the real site so it is not noticed by those sites that scan the contents of the spam blacklist). They don't even need to be abused, they are simply not to be used.
Regarding your desire to use a link in an edit summary to say 'cf. site' - what you should do is to actually use the full link in the text between <ref> and </ref> tags. Then your addition gets properly referenced, and anyone who reads the addition can find the reference. If you put it in the edit summary, then everyone who reads the addition has to a) go through the history and find who added it, and then see what you said in the edit summary. Moreover, if it is only slightly controversial, I would, on wikis where I can read the language, either immediately remove the addition as unreferenced, or ask for a citation using a proper tag. If you use that technique, you don't need to use the whole url in the edit summary.
I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2010-01" page.