Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2017-07

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

Appears to be a prostitution website; spammed cross-wiki by several different users and IP addresses over a period of a few months. See also the relevant COIBot XWiki report. -Mh7kJ (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mh7kJ:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Target link for spam-bots. -- Tegel (Talk) 10:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tegel:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Tegel (Talk) 10:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Target link for spam-bots. -- Tegel (Talk) 11:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tegel:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Tegel (Talk) 11:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Target link for spam-bots. -- Tegel (Talk) 11:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tegel:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Tegel (Talk) 11:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Spambots (w:Special:Undelete/User:IslaHooks690427, w:Special:Undelete/User:AimeeMonroy1). MER-C (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Syum90 (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

Hi, I wanted to add a link ( to the recently translated New Testament in Western-Neo Aramaic on the wikipage "Western-Neo Aramaic" but apparently is listed as spam, is there a reason for this or can this be fixed? AntonSamuel (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I am going to en:WP:AGF on this one. It was spammed several years ago to a couple of wikis by one user.   Removed from Spam blacklist, if spamming re-occurs it can always be re-added. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Domain has expired, no need to blacklist any more.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Giftzwerg 88:   Declined - we don't do maintenance - we will remove it when it is needed. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Why was this one added? I wanted to use it in an article but I couldn't save the edit. --2405:4800:1484:A991:88A6:B476:28:D72D 11:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not on this blacklist. On which wiki did you tried to add the link? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot find a rule or a rule like this on any blacklist. Definitely need to have a copy of the error message and know which which is involved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@2405:4800:1484:A991:88A6:B476:28:D72D: We really need to know on which wiki you were trying to add this. I've been looking in some places, but I can't find any logs for you. Also, can you please post the full link (leaving off the http:// from the front) so we can look at the full link? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Test: --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@2405:4800:1484:A991:88A6:B476:28:D72D:   Declined, not blacklisted. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.

This is the website for the Rambler News Service, which is a news agency. Rambler is sort of the Yahoo of Russia. Rambler creates its own news and runs articles from other agencies. It's quite useful as a source. I'm not sure why it's blocked unless the entire .online domain is blocked. Thanks for your time. Wikimandia (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I don't find a global blacklisting for the domain or urls like it, nor a simple block for online top level domain. That said across all the wikis a grep shows me online\b' found in 971 rules, of which only two are global and more explicit so not the cause, similarly 150 include use of the term online in global blacklist, though a quick scan indicates that they are again more explicit rules. 15 uses of rns\. though none are global, and all are more specific. Are you certain that it is a global rule, rather than a local rule? Otherwise we are going to see and know more, eg. where are you attempting addition?  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh it could be local - I will look at that. Local makes sense, since I imagine it's used on the Russian wikipedia. Thanks. Wikimandia (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Now this one was complex. Just to note, you can feed COIBot the whole link in 'wherelisted', and that will give you the answer. This rule turned out to be so complex that even a simple whitelisting of the domain did not do the trick. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Beetstra. I had checked the domain, though didn't have a confirmed wiki, let a lone an url.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It also took me some time, next time we should be faster in asking 'what link were you actually trying to add', so we can throw it in IRC in the general direction of COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  nothing to do local issue at enWP  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Shortcut for As the latter is a commercial site, I don't see why we should obscure these. It is from absolutely not clear even whether it is to a correct item. And though this particular is free, probably for many you have to pay. Not sure if this is needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there evidence of abuse or potential abuse? If it just a shortened url with no abuse, I am not sure why we would want to. There are numerous "internal" url redirects, if it is just a little shorter, and not abused, what do we care which?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)
Is linking to this (or its master site) not by definition spam/promotion .. a lot of it will be single edits per editor (not a campaign). I am, on Wikipedia, a great opponent of url shorteners .. you don't know what you are linking to (and at least en.wikipedia 'forbids' using shorteners). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
My comment was more related to the use of the shortener compared with the full url; not the provision of a link in itself. If a link is discouraged or banned, then of course we should ban the shortener. If the link is neither banned nor discouraged, why would we wish to prevent a non-abused linking process that just inhibits and somewhat confuses users, or prevents them from editing. If a specific wiki itself has a rule where a link addition is contrary to that local rule, they can and should use their blacklist. I don't see a requirement for a global ban unless there is broader problem.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  Question: is there further input in this? is it a problem?  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2017-07" page.