Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2013-08

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

  • Please add, URL shortener. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  Addedbillinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Same as that is already blacklisted. Local proposal. IW 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  Added confirmed that this is a redirect around a blacklist — billinghurst sDrewth 15:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

See [1]. Apparent malware site. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Addedbillinghurst sDrewth 15:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The domain is globally blacklisted, and on the English Wikipedia, there was an attempt to reference, which turns out to redirect to It looks like this is an attempt to circumvent the blacklisting, so should be blacklisted too. Lustiger seth, it looks like you made the original addition. Can you help? FYI, I am User:Erik on the English Wikipedia. Thanks, Erik on Film (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Adsense also show an association with the url shortener

billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  Addedbillinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

302 redirect to (i.e. URL shortener). MER-C (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  Addedbillinghurst sDrewth 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A service that both redirects and inserts adds into the redirected link - and pays a portion back to the person who adds the redirected link. Been used for spam for example, here. - MrOllie (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  Added seo type service with redirect. no evident use on WMF wikis — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (NSFW)

No redeeming value for Wikimedia projects. MER-C (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  Addedbillinghurst sDrewth 22:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

resume spam

billinghurst sDrewth 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  Addedbillinghurst sDrewth 22:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

This site was added to the blacklist for some reason. I can't see why. The site provides information of products so I reckon it could used as a valuable resource. Thanks 19:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It would seem to have been a request from enWP, see . — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lauriejackpot1. I would say   Declined. Whitelist specific links that are of use, but seen the massive numbers of sockpuppets in that report, and the massive number of links spammed I would not re-enable this so early, probably not even if Jimbo himself would request removal because he needs a source. Wait a couple of years. As MER-C (talk · contribs) also noted, I would even expect them to return with other stuff. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to add some additional references to the Yuri Arcurs page and this domain seems to be blacklisted. Yuri has been posting in various threads on this site and it would be useful to use some of his posts as the source of the information. Specifically I was trying to use this link where me mentions a decline in earnings.

Not blacklisted here (as shown by that you can here link to it), you'll have to request on the wiki where you want to use it.   Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  Declined as explained above — billinghurst sDrewth 15:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, can anyone tell me why the above page is on the Spam blacklist? As far as I can see, it is a reliable site with a lot of high quality translations of philosophers, for example Pseudo-Plato’s Halcyon (remove the star from the URL) in a translation by Brad Inwood. So what’s the problem here? --Tolanor (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This report would indicate that it was being spammed, or pushing a conflict of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Did anyone by any chance check whether it wasn't maybe a good thing to have all those links in so many Wikipedias before they banned the site from all Wikimedia wikis?
However. I request to remove the site from the spam blacklist, because it is a valuable and reliable site. --Tolanor (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The spamming was in 2008, and there was a conflict of interest involved. Maybe in that time, the content was different (more spammy ... ?), and it was not that interesting at that time to have it. I just think that it is not the only place that has high quality translations, and then, do translations need to be linked (see wikisource ..). In any way, it was spammed, pushed, or however you want to call it, and whether the links to link to are good or bad, that is not the way forward.
But since this is now over 5 years ago, we could consider to remove it. It looks that editors do want to use it and that it is of value. If spamming continues or restarts, instead of using such a site in a thoughtful manner, ... --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The process that is encouraged in these situations is to request a whitelist at the wiki of interest and we can watch its success or otherwise. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
So noone can name a single good reason for putting this site on the blacklist, but it can't be removed either? Why? Why not simply remove it? --Tolanor (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? We provided you with reasons. If you are expecting us to be able to account for every addition to the spam list, through its history ... unrealistic expectation. If you are expecting us to know in 2013 why the links were not cleared out in 2008 ... unrealistic expectation. I can talk about why my practice is, and I would only blacklist CoI after numerous reversions and often a warning, and I would not leave a link in a wiki when I am going to blacklist it.

As mentioned earlier with links on the blacklist, we encourage users to have them whitelisted at a local wiki, and I have yet to see that occur for this domain name. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Link to request and decision to block. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  Declined at this point in time, no further progress from requestor — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussed already twice (in June 2006 and October 2006) but it seems there is a consensus that it does not belong to the blacklist at all. Needed to whitelist it locally to work around this entry.  « Saper // talk »  20:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why, this is just a commercial site for bible-books etc. It was indeed de-listed in 2006 .. but also added again in 2008 because it was just plain commercial spam to link to these pages (moreover, it was at that time spammed by someone who seemed to have a clear conflict of interest linking to the site). I do not see any need to link to most of this site, ISBN will do. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  Declined no further communication for past month — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to add a link on a interesting high quality article about a design/architectural project in Germany to the German Wikipedia and was told, the page is on the meta spam blacklist. The link can be found here: As far as I can see there is absolutely no spam on this site to be found but high quality arcticles about worldwide architecture and such. --Rosebud23 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The explanation is at User:SpamReportBot/cw/ and it would seem that they were spamming the sites. Suggest that you request at deWP that they consider an addition to their local whitelist of the domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
THX for answering so quickly. I don't really know this site but when I read this article I could not imagine that there could be something wrong with it. It is so highly informative! And how and why should architects spam other sites, I asked myself. Maybe I try to get it added to the de-whitelist. --Rosebud23 (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  Declined at this point, review if required following local whitelisting — billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Source to article that is published in the peer-reviewed journal Sage Open. The test is at eng/Aspie-quiz.php within the domain.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by rdos (talk)

The article is up for deletion, and you can just link to the journal Sage Open for the reference, no need to use this site for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  Declined article deleted. no further contact for two weeks — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


Hosted on di-da, thus is blocked. A big news and information site with dozens of heplful articles on Okinawan culture and history. Please make an exclusion rule for Okinawa news (needed on Russian Wikipedia for the article on Okinawan surnames). Kf8 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we can not globally whitelist (except for writing specialised and difficult regexes). I would suggest that you whitelist this on your local wiki. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  Declined referred to local whitelisting at respective wiki — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Links containing the word "petition" on w:en:Access2Research

This article is mainly about a petition; recently many of its sources were flagged for being on the spam blacklist. Here is the list:

Since this petition has not been active for about a year, and will not be reactivated, I do not believe there is any harm in permitting links to it. Can we have these links whitelisted? -Pete F (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Those links are not blacklisted. I think this is an issue with the tagging bot, wrongly interpreting the petitiononline rule on en.wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
heh .. Stupid me. It must be a bot mistake .. You are able to save the links here, and I have just saved one of the links in a en.wikipedia blacklist-adaptation request regarding petitions. Guess the bot-operator needs to solve a problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I admit I'm a little baffled by how all this fits together -- I appreciate your attention to it! I also note this which is probably a more useful entry. -Pete F (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It is all in layers. Global rules < Local rules < Bot rules.   Declined nothing to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2013-08" page.