Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2014-10

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

redirect of blacklisted  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  Added -- — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

One of similar recent variations about visas.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  Added spam -- — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet affiliate spam

More info

A checkuser is pending. A generic rule for the Christmas crap (what-?to-?get-? is prudent. MER-C (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Added -- — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC) and did not make it onto the blacklist. MER-C (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

tool failed to add

 — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Added -- — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

and again

Try again. Editing directly is a PITA. --Glaisher (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Added --Glaisher (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The tool is still failing; I had to add it manually. #SBHandler_broken to be the case again. --Glaisher (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  Added -- — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

part of the SBOBET spam club  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Added -- — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removals

  This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted. is a fan site of the game The Fall: Last Days of Gaia, there are no other sites in this 2nd level domain. The site got blacklisted because of the way too broad regex \bpro-(?!(goroda|speleo)).*?\.ru\b (originally \bpro-*?\.ru\b) which blocks all domains in .ru zone that start with "pro-". Effectively it blocks every Russian site that has "professional" or "about" it its name.

We can look to making changes. That said, not sure that fan sites are welcome in the Wikipedias. I know that enWP specifically excludes them. It would be good to have some feedback from ruWP about the proposal to remove, as, from memory, it was a problematic spam time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  Closed nothing further progressed  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is blocked by a dedicated regex (i.e. \bbarcosbarcelona\.com\b), but this deny me to complete the translation of the en:voy article into the new it:voy one. Can it be removed since is the official website of Alquiler de Yates en Mallorca? Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The link has been problematic for over 2 years, about 3 years ago. I would suggest to ask for local whitelisting on the it.wikivoyage, it is only of interest to wikivoyage articles (and only to those that exist), not to the hundreds of other wikis. (This boils down again to the age-old problem for which an already long due overhaul of the Spam blacklist is needed (and suggested years ago on Bugzilla): what is really spam on wikipedia/wiktionary/wikiversity is not necessarily spam on wikivoyage (swap wiki-types around as desired), a wikisubfarm-wide-blacklist/whitelist system or other systems could solve that). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The means of this addition is simply spam, and that level of abuse probably should not given credibility and be on our blacklist. There are consequences for that sort of action.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  Closed  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I was told to defer from en wiki blacklist to here, comments copy and pasted:
How can the site be useful
I cannot find any other sources online which quote some of the historical sources that this website does. The website is as vital as Template:Hadith-usc, which is linking to islamic primary sources at University of South Carolina's website here.

I cant find in the archives here why it was blacklisted. Possibly because it might be considered extremist literature, because it contains: hadith, quran and tafsir. And someone may have thought these historical text promote extremism and violence. If that was the reason it was blacklisted then that is like saying "block websites that link to the bible because it contains violence".

Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ explains nothing about why this was blacklsited--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Why it should not be blacklisted
It does not contain spam or any kind of malware. I beleive it was a huge mistake to blacklist this.

This website contains mainly Islamic primary sources known as Tafsir, so just like there is a Template:Hadith-usc linking to islamic primary sources at University of South Carolina's website, this website is same as the USC webcites which has records of islamic primary sources called hadith. has records of islamic primary sources call tafsir. I am proposing this be whitelisted for same reason as why links from Template:Hadith-usc that go to University of South Carolina's database of islamic primary sources is whitelisted.

Blacklisting reasons:
No opinion on delisting. MER-C 12:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah i get it now, so it was blacklisted because some guys were posting external links to it. But the links were abosultely relevant. If only the blocking admin knew why those guys werel inking to that website on articles related to Quran verses. Its because those links give commentaries of the relevant quran verse. Although those guys may have spammed links from this website on wikipedia. I see that this spamming in particularly was actually relevant and not really considered spam. More effort should have been taken to investigate back then what exactly a tafsir is--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  Done, removed from blacklist here, but Template:Defermetablack because the site is still blacklisted on Meta.
I'll add that the behavior after being blacklisted on meta (evading the blacklist and hiring an outside entity to help them continue spamming) is questionable. Sites are blacklisted on the basis of behavior, and relevance isn't a reason to de-list, although I agree the links would be quite useful on Islam-related articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: See the xwiki report above. Abusive overlinking looks to be the reason, and noting that it is still blacklisted at 4 wikipedias, so it was a widespread issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not convinced either. Can you please explain why this site is offering additional info over the several original and translated pages that are already linked on many of the Wikipedia pages where these links were spammed to. We don't add external links just because they are on topic or about the same subject or because they are telling the same as another page that is already linked. The pages are not in English, so for the majority of the English-reading readers of Wikipedia the pages are not giving any additional info. If you argue that they should be linked from a template, then I would like to see a discussion about that. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The links of those pages do not link to historial sources that this website contains. There are many types of tafsir. And this site has certain types that others do not. The most famous tafsir is Tafsir ibn Kathir, and this is hosted on many sites, that is what people usually link to. But htis site has other alternative ones like Tafsir of al-Wahidi (also called asab al nuzul which is very famous), also it has tafsir al jalayn. Many more as well. I dont find them on other sources--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

global blocking of widely used links

Recently was blacklisted by billinghurst. A lot of links to that domain are used in many wikis. In many cases those links should be unlinked for several reasons (for example in w:de not all archive-bots are able to cope with posts that contain blacklisted links; apart from that some users complain about not being able to send their post although they did not link to a forbidden url---in fact a forbidden url was linked somewhere else on that page).
Is there a (best practise) workflow for unlinking such links in all the wikis? For example in w:de there are two bots which are able to unlink blacklisted links. Probably there are similar bots in w:en. But I don't know, whether there are similar e.g. french or dutch bots. Probably there is no global bot for such a job, because the task would differ from wiki to wiki.
Actually I want to ask this in general. As a second question I'd like to know/discuss, whether the blacklisting of is necessary; can that domain be used to circumvent the sbl? -- seth (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It was being abused, though let us remove it first and have the discussion if it is that widely used.  — billinghurst sDrewth
  Removed  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
'\b(lmgtfy|letmegooglethatforyou)\.com.*[?&]l=1' is there, the option 'l=1' is turning it into a redirect site. Without that, it is just another google-search. Now there is not much need to link to google searches in mainspace of a wiki, it has its function in discussions (some of the 'research' templates on en.w are using it). Those however do not need to use lmgtfy/letmegooglethatforyou - that is just a funny gadget that can be (completely!) avoided by using google (or other search engine) directly.
The unlinking of domains that get blacklisted is an ongoing problem. First, I think that bots SHOULD be able to cope with blacklisted links (or even have a right that their edits are not affected by the blacklist - as long as that does not get 'abused' by the bot-owner). For, the links can easily be replaced by the analogous google-search. On en.w an unlinking bot has not gained any consensus that I am aware of (it can amount to 'vandalism' if a good ref gets de-linked because it did get spammed and blacklisted - I personally had a fight where I blacklisted something after a 8-or-so-year-spam-campaign but which was used, sometimes, as well by regulars).
I don't understand why 'a forbidden url was linked somewhere else on that page' is an issue - if the link was already there the blacklist should not trip, one needs to 'add' the blacklisted domain for the filter to trip, and if that is not the case, something else is wrong.
Regarding - I think that it has no use on Wikipedia (use the direct google link instead) and since it was abused (and a certain potential for that as well), it may have its place on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is not so much that this link was putted on the blacklist. Worse, the previously existing links were not removed automatically. This means that this page (a talk page mostly) is more or less locked. If someone would like to edit only a single section (and this blacklisted link is not located in this section), then this editor cannot realize why the change should not be stored. Maybe this can be treated as a bug. I think, the blacklist should then act on this section only, in which this link is located. --Charly Whisky (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you did not understand what I said here, if there is a link on a page and that links ends up on the blacklist, then there are no problems with saving that page - the blacklist ONLY blocks additions of links, not links that are already there. What you describe is not part of the blacklist functionality, there is something else going on over there. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you did not understand what I said: in the given example the spam filter using the black list made the exactly contrary procedure: see [3] There was a problem with saving that page, indeed. This edit was possible only while the allegedly spamlink was removed simultaneously. Before that I could not save my edit! [4] (The attempts to save are documented by the wiki software: Admins should be able to check the log-file.) --Charly Whisky (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately we don't have a detailed log (with diffs), but only a very short one. And this says "2014-10-21T18:49:18 Charly Whisky caused a spam blacklist hit on talk:Freiraumdämpfung by attempting to add" (seven times with slightly different timestamps).
Charly Whisky is not a newbie and I believe what he says. It might a very old bug of the wiki software that prevented him from saving the page. -- seth (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Charly Whisky/Seth, I completely understood what you were saying, but that is not a problem here, as that is not the intended nor normal working of the system - it must be a bug of some kind. That the links were there should not block your ability to save the page. And if I look at the situation, it is actually exactly what the system did .. first:
  • The link got blacklisted on 16:57, 18 August 2014‎
  • You made an edit on 06:21, 25 September 2014 while the link was there - no problem - intended functionality of the blacklist.
  • Consecutive edit on 18:24, 21 October 2014, which was blocked - against intended functionality.
The blacklisting of should not have blocked either of your two edits to that page, and in fact it was working correctly on the first edit. Your statement "This means that this page (a talk page mostly) is more or less locked. If someone would like to edit only a single section (and this blacklisted link is not located in this section), then this editor cannot realize why the change should not be stored." is simply not how the blacklist should be working, and "I think, the blacklist should then act on this section only, in which this link is located." is closer to the current reality (in fact, the blacklist only acts on added links).
To make it stranger:
  • I undid your edit (easy, lmgtfy is not blacklisted).
  • I blacklisted
  • I added your comment back to the page here, leaving the link - as you notice, no blacklist problem.
  • (I have de-blacklisted again - I am doubting now whether it should maybe stay).
So I repeat, this is not a part of the blacklist functionality, there was something else going on over there. This is likely a glitch of the software, or a genuine bug, and, IMHO, not a reason not to blacklist or de-blacklist links that are widely used - the feature that it only works on added links actually allows us to blacklist widely used links and stop the abuse without interfering with the editing process. I understand that that here botched, but this problem should be reported to Bugzilla/Phabricator (whichever is the active one now), it is not a problem that we can solve here. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

A name unoptimally shortened from its longer form, but this site is an unobjectionable historical research site. Please allow — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse (talk)

  Declined Please just use the full url at RootsWeb rather than the shortened form. Url shorteners are problematic, and is one such example, and the full url is quite acceptable at WMF sites without causing issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2014-10" page.