Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2012-10

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

English and Arabic. Disruptive; deletes legitimate material when spamming:

Possibly related domain (listed for information purposes; do not blacklist without further confirmation):

--A. B. (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  Added the first one. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a spam site but a copyvio one. Virtually everything I've seen on the site is copyvio, and Moonriddengirl and I would like it added to the blacklist. I've removed all the links now from articles, talk pages, AfDs, etc. This has been temporarily blacklisted at en.Wikipedia pending its addition to the global blacklist as the links appear on other Foundation projects as well as Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough.   Added. Could you please check if all the links are removed cross-wiki? --Trijnsteltalk 13:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Lichnos Beach Hotel spam

Has been spamming across a wide range of articles on de, el, en, fi, fr, it, nl, nn, nn, pl, ro, ru and sv wikipedias since mid-2011 in spite of at least 12 warnings/blocks besides the ones I just gave him/her.[1][2][3][4][5]

Spammed domains

Related domains

--A. B. (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Courcelles 01:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to URL shortener. MER-C (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


Per CU-l. 100+ spam accounts

  Added. --Courcelles 01:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Now this one is funny ..

LiWa3 recorded 15.000 additions of this link .. which is just a plain shortening service. Suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it from a template on en.wikipedia, which was on hundreds and hundreds of pages. Will clean de.wikipedia in a bit (one page only). Rest will come in time (need to wait until the database refreshes), but this risk is too big, it is a matter of time until someone figures it out. Hence:   Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Was about to support the adittion. Shortening services are usually used to circunvent the blacklist and are also usually blacklisted on sight. I don't see a reason why this one should get a privilege. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This one was used solely in good faith - 2 templates on en, 2 on nl, and one page on de - did not check the rest of the wikis. It is a convenient service, you can have '', where you can replace the '' with the shortening to e.g. '', and you can use '', which then gets for each #### nicely expanded to the original (and that was how it was used). Thousands of transclusions on en, thousands on nl, which made this a high-used redirect service. We'll see tomorrow if there is still significant use in other wikis left. I think I will try and contact the user .. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This is no spam at all. Please remove the url from the blacklist and revert your own edits. Multichill (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Multichill, we did not say that it was spam, but sites like these, redirect sites or url shorteners, are a serious problem, and that type of sites are actively abused to spam Wikipedia (I have over the last two days blacklisted about 15 because they were actively abused to circumvent the blacklist). Moreover, one can use the full link, there is absolutely no reason to use a shortening service, the templates work at the moment exactly as they should.   Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The templates don't work with the longer url because of post-expand limitations which is a huge problem for the monument lists. We've done quite some effort to get each row as short as possible, this also means that we'd like to use an url which is as short as possible. I don't like to be forced to split multiple lists again when the natural ways of splitting those are all gone. Splitted lists will make readers confused. Especially when there is no natural way of splitting them anymore so we would have to split them on street name or monument identifier (the link is used in monument lists). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Redirection services and shorteners have been added to spam blacklist almost since a spam blacklist does exist, otherwise spamblacklist becomes useless. Which templates cannot work without that shortener?--Vituzzu (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The template will work, but some of the bigger lists (middelburg do get kicked over there post expand limit. Basvb (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I have checked the pages on nl and en, and they all display fine, without problems. I really don't understand what needs 'splitting' -whether a link is or .. both work perfectly, don't make the page look differently or make the template work differently. I really don't understand why one would need to use a redirect site. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
They do not all display fine. I've tested it in both versions now, for example the list from Middelburg is kicked over its post expand limit, this means that the last lines (like 60 monuments) are not displayed and the page is broken. Would it be an idea to blacklist but whitelist ? Basvb (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you mean that you reach the transclusion limit on the page? I can't imagine that changing a template with exactly the same code from displaying 'a' to displaying 'aa' would result in problems in the transclusion limit, but please show me an example. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It goes from: "Post-expand include size: 144684/2048000 bytes" to "Post-expand include size: 152236/2048000 bytes" (this was tested on a small list because on a big list it goes over the limit and I can't see the effect in the end). This means a 6% increase on size. Middelburg with "Post-expand include size: 2021556/2048000 bytes" went over the limit (and probably some other lists as well). This size thing is really an issue and we've allready had to delete or shorten as much as possible. This is 6% which doesn't seem alot, but there is not really another thing we can get these lists shorter with. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
So it is indeed the transclusion limit. I would then suggest to whitelist the two specific ones locally, but leave the larger domain blacklisted. If the whole domain is whitelisted the wiki is asking for spam problems in the future: as I say above, a persistent spammer on en.wikipedia is currently switching both IP ánd redirect service to evade the blacklisting of their site. Until now we needed to blacklist 15 sites already. I can't imagine what would happen if we would deliberately leave one un-blacklisted, this specific spammer has already this habit for the last 3-4 years .. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
To note that spam blacklist works on domains, not on strings, so we can only put a domain in or leave it out (design limitation). You can add and work on the strings in your local whitelists. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I've never done anything with the local (or global) black and whitelists so please tell me what to exactly do locally to keep these two working? Does the local whitelist override the global blacklist? Basvb (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the local whitelist overrides both the local blacklist ánd the global blacklist. The two 'rules' that need to be added are '\bpara\.ms\/rm_id\/' and '\bpara\.ms\/relict\/'. I've added the request to nl:Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina_voor_moderatoren/Spam-blacklist#Nieuwe_verzoeken.
By the way, as soon as you add another handful of lines to that list, you will have the same problem again. I would suggest that you find a more permanent solution ... --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I know that the post-expand problem keeps popping up. There has allready been splitted way more than good for our readers (it's hard to find an object in a city, but how about a city which is devided in 20 lists?). If you've any suggestions for more permanent solutions they would be more than welcome. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  Note: I just whitelisted the two lines Beetstra suggested on the Dutch Wikipedia. Trijnsteltalk 14:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Some more background information at mw:Extension:SpamBlacklistbillinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spammer




Links removed crosswiki. COIBot has been poked. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

After User:COIBot/UserReports/FireBlooD and User:COIBot/Case/case30 I add two new users:

It would be good to just blacklist \bpro-*.ru\b and the other link that doesn't match instead of this huge list of links. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  Added: \bpro-*\.ru\b and the other that does not match with the pattern. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Database dump:

Please check if all is related. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

How did you got the db-dump? :-) -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Remember that COIBot and LiWa3 are my babies. I've got full database access by just logging into the server and constructing a proper SQL-statement. I'm really careful not building that into COIBot since too many too time consuming statements may affect the operation of LiWa3 (she's a bit sensitive to that type of thing, and she was especially when she was on Versageek's box). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Yup, true. I though it was something we all could get. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Please poke me on IRC about this. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest caution since, vgr. in the first linkreport the domain seems to be added by 'good' users. However the 'pro-*.ru' domains looks like everybody can create one. I'll see further tomorrow if possible. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
You mean, it is like a redirect service or free webhost like? If it get spammed with so many domains as you described in the first list, then the rule is good. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC) - It looks like a webhosting service owned by; or is the facilitator. I can not exactly tell. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just poking this:

Have to check where the rest of the data is. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


Cross wiki spamming
See also
Ok al blocco del mio ip, ma è un'illusione perchè ci sono almeno dieci persone che continueranno a reinserire da altri computer il link, com'è giusto che sia.
Translation: "Ok to block my ip, but it is an illusion because there are at least ten people who will continue to replace other computer link, as it should be."

Threats of reinsertion are never signs of good faith. Thanks, --Hu12 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --EdBever (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC) again

I know we have considered this before, but maybe it is that time again. I just blacklisted another page, and noted that on the LinkReport COIBot finds:

No less than six wikis have this blacklisted, among them some rather big ones (en, it). I know that some wikis are blindly copying the en.wikipedia blacklist, but this is worrying if so many communities don't want these links.

Moreover, we have on meta:

\bswelands\.co\.cc\b (the one I just added).

Maybe time to consider again to blacklist the whole stuff? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of blacklisting this one. EdBever (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I am in favor of blacklisting this one too. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Implemented as per above reasoning.
  Addedbillinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

A trusted user on Serbian Wikipedia has requested that this site be removed from blacklist. Site was added in October 2011 because of spamming in English Wikipedia.--Wikit 10:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

They should see whitelisting at the local wiki, it may be at sr:Mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist or there may be an alternate place like an administrators' noticeboard at which to ask. It did seem to be extensively spammed only last December. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  Declined. Please follow the advice of Billinghurst and whitelist the link locally. --Trijnsteltalk 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/
In the meantime has been created. And because of a request for temp unblocking this domain again, I unblocked that domain now, such that the author can finish the Italian article.
I still don't see any need for any further blacklisting. -- seth (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added the domain in the article. --Bah2011 (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, again. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Can we next time first discuss and expand, and then decide? There was no need to de-blacklist it here; it could be whitelisted on it.wikipedia. And if whitelisting is on at least two projects, then indeed the discussion here would be fine. Why jump the gun? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beetstra. Requests to have something unlisted here should be requested and discussed here and not on random user talk pages on random projects. Local whitelisting previously to global unblocking is a good choice, since sites are not added here lightly generally. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
If somebody wants to place an external link (to a legal website) at a wikipedia article about that website, then I don't see any reason for asking before temp. unblacklisting. There was some spamming 5 years ago. Now there is a user who wrote an article in several (eight?) wikipedias, and afaics none of the articles was deleted. So if the local wikipedias don't see enogh reasons against those articles then we at meta must not pretend to know better. However, I blacklisted the domain again for there are still concerns, even if I personally don't agree to them. -- seth (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
We are not talking about temp. unblacklisting. ALL these wikis have local whitelists. You do not de-list, and relist, you whitelist. I am sorry to say, this is a collaborative project, what is the problem with asking for delisting and discussing that? And what is the problem with using the local whitelists to get the links on the pages where they are needed? I really don't get your behaviour here, Seth. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 16:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
If somebody wants to write articles, then we (the admins) should support this user and we should not annoy or slow down this user. Yes, in this case the user seems to be a single-purpose account. Anyway, none of the articles has been deleted. So it is obvious that this user is not spamming but building articles, i.e. helping the wikipedia.
If a domain was whitelisted at several local wikipedias, that domain would then probably be whitelisted at meta (i.e. removed from blacklist), and all local whitelist-entry should be deleted again. (Otherwise the entry at meta would be senseless.) There would be no advantage of having multiple local entries instead of having no black/white entries at all.
The temp unblocking was needed to help the user and so to help wikipedia. So I did that. Apart from that I started a discussion here with my statement, that I don't see any advantages of continuing the blacklisting of that domain.
Because you had objections, I just left it at the temp unblocking. Furthermore that I told that user that next time a local whitelisting request would be the best. And to be honestly: The reason for my advice to this user actually had the following personal background: I just don't like the meta discussions for unblocking.
However, I guess, this could be better, if we had a log of tries of users linking to blacklisted domains, see bug:1542. I bet, many of the domains, blacklisted for more than 3 years, were not part of new spamming attacks. -- seth (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we should be facilitating that. And that could already have been done a LONG time ago. If whitelisting was requested, and granted, on en and on de, then we would probably at the time of the third whitelisting request be very willing to remove the link from the blacklist here. However, those local whitelisting requests were not performed, it was done through a temp-delisting. That suggestion to the user to request whitelisting (which, for a link on a notable article should be very possible) should have been done way earlier. After those two whitelistings on two big wikis, and a request pointing there, and considering the age would have already had the result. Now we are not there because of the undiscussed removals. Not exactly an example of collaboration here. As I think I have suggested last time, I am not necessarily against delisting, but I am against not using the proper process for that. I think had a proper request, one could consider to do it on it.wikipedia anyway, so next time we can just go through a proper request and remove it.
I agree on the bug:1542 - a proper rewrite of the spam-blacklist-facility would be a good thing overall. That shows which spammers are still hitting it (and for some links I know that they try - there is a case on en.wikipedia where a rogue admin removed a blacklist entry because they needed the link somewhere, and 2 weeks later the sock-spamming happily started again (and that after over 6 months being blacklisted ..) - a good handful of socks further, the de-blacklisting was overturned.), and might give considerations whether rules can be removed, or how willing we should be to consider de-listings. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm just now seeing this de-listing. I'm appalled. The articles that were created were spam articles, too, by special-purpose accounts. If we have discussions as we should and as Dirk Beetstra has pointed out, we would avoid these bad outcomes. Score: PR editors 1, Wikipedia 0. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 03:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to point out, by NOT going to the local whitelist for a discussion and trying to find consensus, local scrutiny of the created pages is avoided. In stead, a friendly admin is asked to, every time, shortly de-blacklist (probably through an account which is also not on the wiki where the whitelisting should have occurred), and then the link is added. This gives a strong feel of avoiding scrutiny (even if that was all done in good faith). I am adapting my previous suggestion, I'd like to see at least two independent wikis now to show that whitelisting is viable and that the article can withstand the scrutiny, without the interaction of Seth or Bah2011 (Bah2011 can suggest in neutral wording on said wiki, but refrain from further commenting). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  Declined Advice has been provided on a means to progress, and opinion does not favour the removal without undertaking the whitelisting process, otherwise this is stale. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to use an interview on ( as a source (for the German Wikipedia). Alternatively (since I don't know anything about dzone other than it hosts this one interview I'd like to link) I'd suggest that can be left on the blacklist, but could be added to the whitelist. --User:Alex Schröder

The global spam blacklist is not that sophisticated, it only looks at the domain name, so you would need to get that component added at deWP as the string to get around your issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  Declined two weeks since request opened, no further update — billinghurst sDrewth 16:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am the owner of and would like to request it be un-banned. I have no idea how this happened. It is the definitive site on its topic, constantly in Google news and appears in dmoz. I would be grateful if the ban could be removed. Thank you.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

It was pushed, in 2008, onto articles about QR-code, and in addition, the addition was on at least 6 different wikis. That was at that time enough spammy to blacklist it. This is not about the popularity of the site, it is about the use of the site, you'd have to convince the editors here that your site is of universal use on the pages, and should be linked from them. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, four years ago I employed an SEO for a couple of months and he caused a lot of problems, probably this one. I do not want the site to be listed in Wikipedia unless an editor thinks 2d-code is a useful resource. However I would like to remove the blemish on the site's record if that were possible?

I am comfortable to remove it, and noting that the system will continue to monitor the url so it will reappear for us to deal with if it is again abused. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  Removedbillinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please remove from spam list. It passed a several years and it came on spam list due to missunderstandings. Many users of that site have problems with registration because of many different spam filters procedures. Some of them probably checking your spam list. Thank you!The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

And why would this site be of use to Wikipedia in general? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  Not done closing after no response — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  Declinedbillinghurst sDrewth 16:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not yet a formal request, but an alert that Suite might be improving. After October, "we'll move on to the new model which focuses on quality of contributions rather than the number of ad-clicks and pageviews an article receives." Would we be interested in inquiring with Suite, as to what the new model of quality control is? Perhaps we could even influence their policies. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we can answer that question from meta, and most unlikely that there will be much response here. You may wish to seek that feedback at the WPs.

  Not done at this time — billinghurst sDrewth 16:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm requesting that you review this site's status. The company is publicly traded on the NASDAQ, so it meets WP:N. However, as the URL is blacklisted, there are articles, in Italian for example, without a link to the company's official website. 1-555-confide (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This is quite an old item where it was spammed by a company that was hired by the owners of the site. The abuse by that SEO company was enough to make blacklisting of this site, and many more necessary.
Normally, I would suggest that you first try a local whitelisting (in this case, on it.wikipedia), but I am tempted to grant this delisting. I'll await some more input on this. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Dirk. An entry on Spanish Wikipedia is on my list of articles to create, so I'm most favourable to a de-listing. I'd assume that now they're a public company, Caesarstone don't still employ spammers who use 'SEO techniques' like those that got them banned. 1-555-confide (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
A granted whitelisting would make that case stronger. But anyone can do the honours to de-list? --Beetstra public (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  Removed concur with Beetstra, and have requested COIBot to monitor it xwiki as a audit process. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2012-10" page.