Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2012-02

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

Redirect website, being used to circumvent blacklist. billinghurst sDrewth 15:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added billinghurst sDrewth 15:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spamming by -- Tegel (Talk) 01:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Tegel (Talk) 01:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Action as alternative to global block of Can be removed from blacklist when IP-address is blocked. -- Tegel (Talk) 01:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Global block has been placed by Jyothis. Snowolf How can I help? 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

URL shortener. Anomie 04:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Acting as a redirect service. billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Adsense google_ad_client = pub-8593514738061150 (Track - Report -

See also WikiProject_Spam case

Cross wiki spam accounts

Long term abuse--Hu12 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

URL shorteners. MER-C (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

URL shortener used for clickjacking vandalism ([1]). It Is Me Here t / c 16:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnstel (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File links to

I am seeing files deep linked to you senditcom. I would proposed that we should be looking to prevent the linking to files at as there is going to be the high likelihood for copyright files, or files not purporting to be what is expected. I was thinking that there should be allowance for the top of the domain, however, we should look to block billinghurst sDrewth 14:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Example of what is at enWP w:en:Special:LinkSearch/* billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  Declined at this point through no further support, maintain status quo billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A file storage site that has historically been used for linking to all types of files, and generally as link spam. No requirement for us to link to these sites from encyclopaedic or similar sites. If required by sites, they can whitelist specific links. billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  Declined at this point through no further support, maintain status quo billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Google redirect service

To pair all the other variations of link shortening services. Wikimedians can utilise full link length. billinghurst sDrewth 08:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Already added by Mike.lifeguard in December 2009, see here and the request. Trijnstel (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Weird, I saw it in a link feed the other day. Oh well, we have done what we can do, and now we can just watch. billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  Declined billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC) - anonymyzer that shortens urls

Shortens the url and anonymizes it, used today on the English Wikipedia to redirect to blacklisted url (see revdel'ed by another admin)Snowolf How can I help? 04:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it is unnecessary, and a workaround that is undesired. billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  Added billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See --Erwin (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Erwin (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Spammed via template at the Dutch Wikipedia. Edits have been hidden, but see the history of w:nl:Template:InterProject if you have access. --Erwin (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Erwin (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Erwin (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Same as above (clickjacking on eswiki), specifically πr2 (tc) 23:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added--Vituzzu (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC), same as above. πr2 (tc) 00:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC) was globally blacklisted earlier today, so   Added billinghurst sDrewth 01:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I have a question: Could we add .*proof\.php to the Spam blacklist? πr2 (tc) 02:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

URL shortener (hosting the above stuff too). πr2 (tc) 23:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnstel (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

URL shortening service. See also [2]. It Is Me Here t / c 17:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnstel (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. Links added onto multiple wikis with the only intent of harming living people.
  2. Sole purpose of the existence of this website is to denigrate living people.
  3. The website is operated by the intelligence agency branch of the Scientology organization, the Office of Special Affairs or OSA.

Please add to blacklist.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A quick check only shows that the site is used at one site, enWP, however, I have a report running to see what we can identify xwiki. At this point of time, it would seem that this is a single issue matter and should be initially addressed at enWP. Acting against any site solely for their beliefs is not something in which meta can act, we would need to see widespread conflict of interest or spamming. In the absence of that, I would feel that there would need to be a broader community decision to blacklist the domain name. billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Due to the maintenance and creation of the site by the intelligence branch the Office of Special Affairs or OSA, it is most likely that usage of the link additions are conflict of interest. The clear only motivation of usage of this site is to disparage living people. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
On the basis of hearsay, and without a specific set of examples, I am not prepared to implement this request, especially as there has been matters arising from enWP around this whole subject matter. I would much prefer to see something come through enWP ArbCom as a request, or as a request from a number of wikis, or following an RFC here. billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'll get to work on providing more information about how the website has its sole purpose to disparage living people. -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  Declined at this point in time, can be reopened as necessary billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Case 13

Case report by COIBot.

Series of related links, made by a variety of users, over a range of sites where the sites are all inter-related, and difficult to pinpoint one specific user abusing, however, the range of sites and places looks suspicious. billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)



Case autogenerated by COIBot. -- billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This COI case includes sites,,,,,,, and users Rita1939, Tadas1980,,, at least. But I have to notice that most of the links to these sites in ruwiki are legitimate, though some of the articles are not notable enough for ruwiki.
Sites,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, are not associated with this case. Kv75 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a xwiki compilation of edits, I did try to indicate that many happened recently though trying to easily find a pattern editors at a wiki was difficult, however, the sum of additions of low notability xwiki is suspicious. IF there are known good editors in this bunch, please identify them and we can exclude them from the report. billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
That some sites are good on some local wikis, while they are being spammed/abused XWiki does not exclude the solution that they are all meta-blacklisted, with local blacklisting on those wikis which are fine. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  Declined (closed) no further action at this time. billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

URL shortener. MER-C (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnstel (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent cross-wiki spambots. πr2 (tc) 18:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree this one should be bl'd - I put it on Meta and Commons bls today. --Herby talk thyme 18:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  Added. --Trijnstel (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent crosswiki spambot. πr2 (tc) 02:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Courcelles (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

URL shortening service. πr2 (tc) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect/shortening service. billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spambot (see HakubeBohamo, JeyoyuWujuca, RohagaNequyo, etc. etc.). πr2 (tc) 17:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Support listing this - I've just bl'd it locally twice - link report is not showing anything though. --Herby talk thyme 17:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  Done--Vituzzu (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spambot, similar pattern as above request for (but link report doesn't show anything). πr2 (tc) 17:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of where this link was spammed? Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Here are some I found:
πr2 (tc) 20:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  Added. Thanks, that is "good" to see since for some reason the bot isn't listing anything. --Courcelles (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam (see LinkReport). πr2 (tc) 23:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added by another billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

URL shortener. πr2 (tc) 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Added from COIBot report

Proposed removals

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

As I understand, this domain is marked as "spammed". But it's the largest russian social network (fourth most popular site at Russia), so blocking it is quite a big problem for Russian wiki. For example, I can not create new article about it's history. So, maybe admins could remove it from black list? --Okras 08:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the additions in 2009 it seems to have been added loosely xwiki, so I would suggest that as it has been problematic xwiki that you should seek to have the domain whitelisted as ruWP. billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The domain should be excluded from the global blacklist, so that relevant links to personalities' profiles on it could be published in any language version of Wikipedia, as it is with Facebook and Twitter. There is some spam pointing to companies' pages on Facebook, nevertheless, the social network itself should not be a subject to blocking. --eugrus 11:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Support that, the domain should be unblocked, see for details. --Ssr 12:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I am a bit on both sides here (we had this request not too long ago as well). is like facebook and twitter (both quite strongly discouraged on en.wikipedia, by the way, they are more an exception than a rule), so there is use for the site. On the other side, was in the beginning quite strongly abused (this is plain promotion, it has nothing to do with linking to useful information), something that I have not seen in that form with facebook and twitter (on that scale). I might be inclined to delist here, but list it on en.wikipedia. On the other hand, most of the use will be in russian-language wikis, the use on German, English, French, Spanish wikis is minimal, so maybe whitelisting it on Russian-wikis would be better. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The past amount of spam on has been overcome since the introduction of an obligatory mobile phone binding to every account. Don't think is being abused more than any other social or blogging platform as for now. The global blocking also affects a lot tens of Wikipedias on languages of Russia and the former USSR. So, whitelisting it in each one of these is extremely ridiculous. Especially, when there is no present reason to continue global blocking. --eugrus 15:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be useful if ruWP had whitelisted and there was evidence that spamming was not happening; a pilot is always good evidence; fact is always better than a belief. For many non Russian language sites it is little relevant, and some would like to see better control of facebook, twitter, google and the like are being both misused and abused at English Wikipedia and other wikis. billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Do note, that ru.wikipedia actually has a rule blacklisting, not whitelisting it. I would hence say   Declined, if even the Russian Wikipedia is blacklisting it. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I try to remove it from Russian blacklist too. And note, that now has quite good abuse system for blocking spam (and so on). Secondly, it's now not so "closed" for unregistered users and for search engine indexation, so it's not so inappropriate for referencing at articles. --Okras 08:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This has not a lot to do with the system for blocking spam on, it has to do with the system for blocking spam by on wikipedia. That there is spam on an external website is not our problem, our problem that we need to keep out sites spamming us. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

-- Tegel (Talk) 08:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Removed. IP-vandal globally blocked. --Tegel (Talk) 08:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the site, it's for selling stuff.

Thanks very much -- jokido 16:34, 11 February 2012

  Declined This is part of large spam racket put together by Commission Breakthrough to insert links into Wikipedia articles and then to collect money from payment services for click through. Please do note that it is not the scope or goals of Wikimedia is not here to help you sell "stuff". billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • reden: Is ooit toegevoegd aan blacklist omdat de site commercieel zou zijn en geen toegevoegde waarde zou hebben voor het onderwerp Graancirkels. Dit verbaast mij ten zeerste omdat 1. De site NIET commercieel is en 2. Het up-to-date karakter van de site juist een enorm toegevoegde waarde heeft.
  • relevante links:
  • verzoek door: Bert Janssen 01:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/ there is evidence of link farming, across multiple domains. As notation for community the complainant is the owner of the listed website … billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
That has a specific pointer to enWP blacklist billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Bert Janssen, you should have a look at those links that sDrewth is providing here, and address those concerns. You are wrong about the reasons why this was actually added. To spell it out: it was added because someone added this domain to a lot of wikis, because someone pushed the link even when uninvolved editors removed it (and not let consensus decide whether the link should actually be included), and because someone moved the link to more prominent position. The reason that is being done, is likely because that someone wanted to divert traffic to your site.   Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC) is a serious site describing ghettos (death camps) in nazi-occupated Europe, en:Aktion Reinhard and more. It is quite a good documentation.

I used a table with data concerning about 400 ghettos from (with kind permission) for creating de:Liste der Ghettos in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus.

Some years ago there was a break in the working group and an alternative site claimed to be the legal successor. However, it was closed down again soon after. That internal argument is over.

The site is whitelisted in language wikipedias de, el, fi, and he.

I would like to ask you to remove from the black-list-entry.

Thank you very much

Yours faithfully -- Simplicius 08:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This looks that it was imposed due to a dispute between websites over content and intellectual property, (discussion). It notes that when there is a resolution of that dispute, and that WMF sites are no further drawn into their content disputes, then we can look to remove it. billinghurst sDrewth 23:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The dispute and editwar is resolved: the twin-site was removed some months later. Simplicius 09:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That sounds positive, that being the case and there being no other history, I would favour its removal. billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I note that the link is whitelisted on de, el, fi and he - which seem to me typical Wikis where, if there would be on-wiki abuse, it would be abused (knowing history, this might not spill onto en.wikipedia thát much). I would suggest that all of the sites involved would then be removed to avoid advantages on one side or the other. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to correct myself. It is actually, besides here, black (not white) listed on de, el, fi and he wikipedia. Unfortunately, that may change the situation. We'll have to look more into this. Sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)(sigh) --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note: my request is refering to the site (without "-"). was whitelisted in many projects.
As said, the other project vanished. -- Simplicius 08:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You are right. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  Removed billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Rain Taxi

This was added a few years ago in response to a sockfarm spamming for one Rain Taxi contributor (even though Rain Taxi contributors are not paid by the page view). This is a notable review-and-interview site, which is used for references in several articles and "interviews with the author" in several others (and the blacklist came to my attention as the result of an article about a notable controversy triggered by a Rain Taxi article). DS (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We discussed this, it seems the rule is too wide. Moreover, it is more than a year ago, I hope the spamming stopped (which seemed to have focussed on a few articles on this site anyway). Hence:   Removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2012-02" page.