Misplaced Pages

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:20, 29 February 2008 editHu12 (talk | contribs)91,877 edits tangeroiseimmobilier.com: added← Previous edit Revision as of 13:41, 29 February 2008 edit undoA. B. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers51,784 edits Complaint about inaccurate report: OK, well can you help us with some answersNext edit →
Line 406: Line 406:
Starfish Starfish
PK. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> PK. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::OK, can you help us? Can you step through this list and specify who owns each of these sites?
::*araneous.gr
::*prisma.gr
::*coopdir.com
::*findit.gr
::*quasimodobell.wordpress.com
::*themallblog.com
::*e-write.gr
::*starfish.gr

::Also, can you point us towards the relevant domain registration entries? Thanks.

::I note that this spam campaign extended from mid-2006 through 2008 which includes the time period when you were promoting this site. Your IP traceroutes to the ], which was also a source of quasimodobell promotion.

::As for your concern that we presume to be some sort of Internet spam police, the answer is that we don't. We just act to protect our own site. This blacklist covers the English Misplaced Pages only. Another blacklist covers all ] and many ] wikis; your links were not reported there since we did not find any evidence of link-spamming to other ] wikis.

::As for "working for" Misplaced Pages, I'm just a volunteer.

::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


=Troubleshooting and problems= =Troubleshooting and problems=

Revision as of 13:41, 29 February 2008

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is a page in the MediaWiki namespace, which only administrators may edit. To request a change to it, please follow the directions at Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist.
    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Misplaced Pages only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.


    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.


    Instructions for admins Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 194889330 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    Archives

    Proposed additions

    Please add new entries to the bottom of this section. Please only use the basic URL (google.com not http://www.google.com). Please provide diffs to prove that there has been spamming! Completed requests should be marked with {{Done}} or {{Notdone}} or other appropriate Indicator then archived.

    www.craigslistinformation.com

    has been added to the Craigslist article about once a week or so.

    Thanks! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry this seems to have been missed. Is it just teh one IP adding it & is it still happening? Personally I'd go for a block next time (if that is the case) and then list after than (feel free to nudge me on my talk page for the block if you want) --Herby 12:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    Carbon Copy Pro 3

    Guess who's back? This time, he's trying calling it "CC Pro" to try and escape detection.

    URL

    • ccpro2008.wetpaint.com
     Done, I wonder how many of the wetpaint.com sites are doing the same thing..(ref--Hu12 (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

    URL Looks like he's switched homes:

    • www.squidoo.com/CarbonCopyProleads

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talkcontribs) 08:09, 13 Feb 2008

    Thanks,  Done & user blocked --Herby 11:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    If they return, we might pursue a checkuser block. It's working against the Obaid Azam Azmi vanispamcruftisers. (And I thought squidoo was already blacklisted...) MER-C 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    squidoo.com is Bl'd, but just for subdomains, i've readjusted the regex accordingly--Hu12 (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Already tried Checkuser, I'm afraid. --Calton | Talk 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    He's back...

    Any chance of putting wetpaint.com on the link-removal bot list?

    --Calton | Talk 14:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

    Far to many links using wetpaint.com, I'll list the expression "carboncopypro", and we can adjust as needed. Please keep up the good work.--Hu12 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

    Man he does NOT give up:

    --Calton | Talk 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

     Done. --Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

    How about using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist? MER-C 05:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    Good suggestion. I've added MediaWiki_talk:Usernameblacklist#Is_this_correct.3F first, if someone wants to double check before I add it.--Hu12 (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


    Planet of Rock spam

    General nuisance spam...

    Domain
    Account

    Evidence of spamming:

    Scarian 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

     Not done for now, have blocked the offending account. If another account or ip is used to spam, please report back. Thanks Scarian. --Hu12 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

    Amazon.com referral spam

    This spam gets added to articles about academic testing every few days. User contributions was warned here about spamming by administrator User:Hu12 on 13 Feb, but the spamming has continued.

    Blocking the IP addresses won't help because (a) the incidents are infrequent; (b) legitimate edits have occurred from those addresses; (c) different IP addresses are involved, although it's primarily 62.3.32.54.

    Accounts
    URLs
    • amazon.com/gp/redirect.html
      • With or without 'www'
      • There's no reason to use this URL except to disguise a referral spam link.
    • rcm.amazon.com/cm?t=
      • The part after the "t=" is the associate account ID. Used for associate referral links, probably just rcm.amazon.com is needed. I haven't seen this one on Misplaced Pages yet, but I'm an Amazon associate and that's what my links would look like, if I wanted to add my linkspam.
    • amazon.com/.*&tag=
      • With or without 'www'
      • The "tag=" string indicates an amazon associate who gets paid if someone buys something after clicking on the link. I'm assuming the blacklist uses something like egrep, so .* is a wildcard for "any characters".
    Evidence of spamming

    =Axlq 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for making the url regex easy. Agree with the rationale, consider this  Done--Hu12 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks. Maybe now the spammer will use tinyurl.com tricks (if that isn't already blocked, it should be). By the way, how come some patterns in the list are enclosed by \b...\b and some aren't? =Axlq 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, this is one of the referral links that I wanted to ban the most! Good work getting the regexps! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    \b indicates a word break, i.e. if there are letters or numbers on the other side, it won't match. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    What about punctuation? If the blacklist contains \bamazon\.com will it still match www.amazon.com because there is a period, not a letter or number, before 'amazon'? =Axlq 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    . (a period) is a word break.. foobaramazon.com won't match, but www.amazon.com will. --Versageek 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    smarter.frih.net

    IP user keeps adding these links to this site, which has classic science fiction stories with no indication whatsoever that they are licensed to appear there; when reverted, he/she calls reverting editors "ignorants"!


    Accounts
    Evidence of spamming


    Adsense pub-1118213816215986
    92.80.24.187 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    92.80.61.146 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    92.80.28.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    --Hu12 (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

     Done, no content on the pages but adsense and links back to wikipedia and fantasticfiction.co.uk--Hu12 (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    Wow! Did you even bother to check the links? For instance the Asimov page has links for 2 stories: "Profession" on abelard.com and "Gold" on webscription.net Since when someone should prove he is not guilty? The site is useful for it has more than 400 links to online fiction legally published by tens of websites like gutenberg.org, scifi.com, webscription.net, baen.com, infinityplus.co.uk, strangehorizons.com, authors' own websites, etc. That's why I call those who throw the stone WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CHECK THE ACCUSATIONS FIRST as being ignorants! (UNSCRAMBLER (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

    Backgammon spam

    Every edit by 82.211.176.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been to add either backgammons.artprom.biz or artprom.biz to Backgammon. (The first version of the site is in English, the second in Russian.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    Agreed up to a point. However with only that number of edits let's try other methods first. I've blocked for 48 hours. Let's see if it springs up from another IP/or after the block and then look at this. Hope that is ok & thanks for picking it up, cheers --Herby 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I thought blacklisting was more to the point because the site is blatantly commercial with no useful content. I doubt that a short block will have much effect because it's used so infrequently and the user was only up to a third warning. But, however you want to handle it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    Cross-wiki spam:
    --A. B. 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    wwesuperstars.org

    Multiple IP's (whom I suspect are the same person since they are so similar) and a regular user (who I can't find at the moment) continue adding this site to wrestling related articles even after being warned. Here are some examples: , , . TJ Spyke 09:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    Here is the full list, dozens of articles being spammed by different users: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/wwesuperstars.org. TJ Spyke 02:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed &  Done, thanks --Herby 10:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    codeuu.com

    Editor attempting to avoid detection by use of throwaway accounts. See WikiProject Spam report permanent link. I have posted over at WikiProject Computer Science in case an established editor there objects. -- SiobhanHansa 19:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    I think this is not a good idea.this site is same as wikipedia.everyone can edit. Maybe some of its content is not good,you can ask the webmaster of this site to remove the content,if you remove it,we can not access this good site again.just like wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill14341 (talkcontribs) 07:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

     Done thanks - can always be removed if an established editor has valid reasons --Herby 10:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    oink.pytalhost.com

    Domain: oink.pytalhost.com (pytalhost.com is a domain name registar and host)

    Account:

    Prior discussion:

    Phantomia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    217.226.148.165 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    212.230.45.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    217.226.174.112 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    217.226.142.83 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    clear abuse, low value link, popups and other Links normally to be avoided criteria met.  Done thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    Would like to extend this to //oinky.6x, a reincarination of the previously mentioned web-site. 77.90.4.49 (talk · contribs) has been requested for a block, and the page has been put at RPP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    The url does not resolve?--Hu12 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    OK, oinky.6x.to  Done--Hu12 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    This is getting old: oink.dr.ag. I requested RPP at one point but was removed almost immediately. seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    webmasters.am

    I am proposing that the URL www.webmasters.am be added to the spam black list. This link is posted anonymously from various IP addresses:

    And posted on various topics:

    (diff) (diff) (diff)

    (diff)

    (diff) (diff) (diff)

    (diff) (diff) (diff) (diff) (diff) (diff)

    These are all links that fall in to the Misplaced Pages:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided category # 11. Usually the edits are made on the same day within minutes of each other.

    The user R00m_c (talk · contribs) has also been active in removing these links. Christopher G Lewis (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    --Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    internetisseriousbusiness.com

    This page flies around the screen and shows numerous successive pop-ups when you try to navigate away from it. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk 20:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

    Do you have any evidence that this was spammed? MER-C 01:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    It was used on the help desk to deliberately mislead and annoy users. I have posted it here upon the advice of Hersfold. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk 17:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
     DoneAdded to blacklist, user who recently added it blocked, removed all links to it. Woody (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

    Regexp for penisenlarge

    As would be expected, the penis enlargement article gets its share of linkspam. contributions and contributions, for example, have been repeatedly blocked for linkspamming (also see spam blacklist report on User Talk:125.209.115.132). Every so often this user comes back and adds variations of a domain name that contain the string "penisenlargement", such as penisenlargementss.com and penisenlargementy.com.

    Example diffs of spam:

    I suggest we add a general purpose regexp to this blacklist, something like \bpenis-*enlarge*\.{2,4}\b. That would pre-emptively take care of future "contributions" of linkspam to that article. I'm assuming egrep pattern matching here; not sure what's actually being used.

    Keeping in mind the debate below about blogspot, we should of course avoid casting too wide a net. A regexp matching simply "penis" may be a bit too broad, but I think "penisenlarg" is almost guaranteed to be spam. =Axlq (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

    Update: Well, one can't get them all. Another user just got a permanent ban for spamming the article with enlargementpills.be. Is there a way to make this blacklist context-sensitive; that is, block certain domains from being added to specific articles? =Axlq (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Update again: After seeing another incident, I moved this section from discussion section below to this proposal section. =Axlq 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    gov-certificates.co.uk

    This site is a copyright violating Misplaced Pages remote loader mirror (see Misplaced Pages:Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi#gov-certificates.co.uk and ), and has been for some time, and it has also been spammed on Misplaced Pages (eg ) and even used inadvertently. This site simply has no place on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps it should be blacklisted at meta. -- zzuuzz 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    checkY Done -- zzuuzz 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    partenovcfd.com

    Block evading spammer, spammed today after 77.85.162.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked twice for exactly that. See WT:WPSPAM#spam.partenovcfd.com. MER-C 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

     Done--Hu12 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    tangeroiseimmobilier.com

    A real estate company in Tangier. They keep adding their link to the Tangier page from different IP addresses. User:Khalid hassani has indicated on the Revision history of Tangier, on 25 Feb. 2008, that they are also spamming the French Misplaced Pages. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, I added this at the bottom of the page yesterday, instead of here. They've just added their link to the Tangier page for a fourth time. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    They've just added their link to the Tangier page a fifth time. --RenniePet (talk) 09:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    Accounts

    196.206.20.76 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    41.249.114.223 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    196.206.16.72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    41.249.66.206 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    Proposed removals

    Use this section to request that a URL be unlisted. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section. You should show where the link can be useful and give arguments as to why it should be unlisted. Completed requests should be marked with {{Done}} or {{Notdone}} or other appropriate Indicator then archived.

    insomnia.ac

    When I tried to add a review article about ketsui as reference, I was informed it was a spam site. Last time I checked, it is a legitimate video game review site. Why was it entered spam list in the first place? The whole idea of the spambot list simply isn't working, because spammer would just move target, while innocent people who happened to inherit spammer's domains will suffer. Jacob Poon 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

    The owner of the site added links to it to many VG-related articles, which was done in good faith, but it seems somebody thought it was not.see this, this and this. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


    petitiononline.com

    I had used one of this website's petitions in the article Wizards (film) () as a citation for the fact that the petition had gotten the film released on DVD. This fact has been verified by the director both in interviews and on the film's DVD release. It should be linked in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

    Linking to the petition itself isn't a suitable source as verification (since the mere existence of the petition is not verification that the petition is the reason for the release). The interviews of the director in which s/he confirms that the petition is what prompted them to release on DVD is a much more appropriate source. Can they not be cited instead? -- SiobhanHansa 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    They are cited, but I feel that it is important to also cite the petition itself. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
     Not doneNot a reason to delist the whole domain  Defer to Whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    smarter.frih.net

    This site is a collection of links to legally published online Science Fiction. It is useful because it gathers in one place all known free online SF works (over a 1000 and the number is growing) from tens of more or less specialized websites such as gutenberg.org, webscription.net, baen.com, scifi.com, infinityplus.co.uk, strangehorizons.com, eidolon.net, etc. and authors' own websites. The accusations of copyright concerns are completely unfounded. No content is stored at the site and all links are to free online science fiction (free as in having copyright owner's consent). Let's take the example of Isaac Asimov. Right now there are online 2 stories: "Profession" at abelard.com and "Gold" at webscription.net. If someone bothered to check the links, he would have seen the copyright notices at those websites. They have the right to make those stories freely available to anyone. (UNSCRAMBLER (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

    The listing (request here) looks perfectly valid to me. My concern is not just about content but also about the fact that the IP who placed the links completely ignored the fact that they were not required by the community (& were rude about it as well) --Herby 09:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    "not required by the community"!? For me it seems a requirement for an author's page to have a link to the works of that author (if they are legally available, of course). I think that for a Misplaced Pages user it doesn't matter what kind of person the contributor is but it does matter if he/she finds the contribution useful. As an avid science fiction reader I find this type of links as being very useful. (UNSCRAMBLER (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

    paleontex.net.tf

    I own, and am the sole contributor to, this website. It contains no content that could be seen as blacklist material and I will only use it on my own user page unless somebody requests otherwise. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

    It is early so maybe it's me but I can't see that it is blacklisted here? --Herby 08:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    It's other domain's freewebs.com/dendodge, is that blacklisted? I've not got time to check. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    quasimodobell.com

    I am contributor to this site. There are about a lot of people working in this site for free. It contains data that can not be found elsewhere. We have covers for lps for every country and accurate catalog numbers for record collectors that we collect personally. Our discography material is unique and rare not for every artist/group we have but for the most. We only add links to wiki when our link provides info that is worth noticing and only with relevant material. Every music fan who knows about recording industry can appreciate that our info is sometimes great. And of course all is free. No copyright laws are broken. We dont give downloads, we dont sell anything illegal. We understand that we may added too many links too soon. We feel they are worth it but if we are creating any trouble we will stop it or minimize it. Please consider our case. Thank you. Andreas Xantzis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreasxatzis (talkcontribs) 11:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    I've see a lot of spamming cases, but I have yet to see one at this extreme level, using 228 sock accounts (including requestors) spread ove 300+ articles (now cleaned). Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Long_term_quasimodobell.com_spam --Hu12 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


    I note that several related domains were missed earlier:
    Related domains
    • Google Adsense: 2417789735159612
    • Google Adsense: 2417789735159612


    Possibly related domains
    • Google Adsense: 7932995015670068
    • Google Adsense: 7932995015670068
    --A. B. 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


    Here are links to the relevant rules about this sort of thing
    You were provided with links to these policies and guidelines in the warnings some of your accounts were given.
    Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
    Unlike Misplaced Pages, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
    Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting here, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative.
    no Declined --A. B. 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Complaint about inaccurate report

    I received the following comment on my talk page; I have copied it here along with my first, brief response:

    ''Dear Sir, I am representing a Greek company that create quasimodobell.com I was asked by my client to review your answer about his proposal to remove his from wiki black list today, and also i was informed that you mentioned other sites we created in your post.
    First. I do not own quasimodobell. My client does, I only created it. I do not own all the other sites you mention except my company domain and two more that absolutely nothing to do with quawsimodobell. I dont/cant tell my customer how to use his website. I dont post in wikipedia. I never did and i am not interested in. You refer to my company site and other sites we have created in your answer. You also give some google adsense ID. Different from those in quasimodobell ownen by different people. What are you doing???? If the owner of quasimodobell is spamming or doing anything you dont agree with, resolve it with him. His email and contact information can be found in his site. You dont want him posting in wiki? Did he spam? Then add him to your blacklist. Whats the point of reffering to other sites we have created for our customers and our company sites. Do you understand that you are attacking different persons? You refer to a greel blog, a greek web design company, a blog with nothing to do with quasimodobell, a greek classifileds website and a internet niche directory. Did this sites spam wikipedia? Did you find any link or post in wikipedia to this websites? Absolutely not. Please remove all our links and references that have nothing to do with wikipedia COMPLETELY before we have to take legal actions against you personally.
    Starfish.gr PK.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.250.225 (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Dear PK:
    I am very concerned about your comments and want to make sure I've done the right thing. Please understand that we get comments all the time from not-so-innocent spammers insisting they did not spam or that their domains were not related. At the same time, we also make mistakes. When everyone is using pseudonyms or anonymous IPs, it's often difficult to sort out these claims.
    I am copying your response to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#quasimodobell.com in order to get additional opinions there and have others review my actions. I will respond further to your comments there.
    --A. B. 13:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


    I take these comments seriously and I will investigate this and respond further today or tomorrow when I have better computer access. In the meantime, I would ask that before anyone blocks this user per our No legal threats policy, I suggest they also read the "Don't overlook legal threats" essay:

    • "When newcomers make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before wielding a banhammer."

    I think it's quite possible that the "possibly related" domains above may not be owned by the spammer; that's why I marked them as "possibly" related. I also think that the other domains I cited are definitely closely related based on the links I posted as footnotes above; I will repeat them here:

    In the meantime, I ask that others not block or sanction the IP above.
    --A. B. 13:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    I will post one more comment here about this subject because I am very concerned with it and furthermore I dont think you read my post carefully. Here is how it goes. 1. I do not own quasimodobell.com. I created it for a customer of mine. Before me it was created by a company named araneous. That explains the first link. Contact the website or search the net. You will clearly find the owner name. 2. I dont ask you to not-ban quasimodobell. If they spammed wikipedia do as you must. 3. As quasimodobell was created by me, my client asked me how to raise his traffic. Thats why i posted with my name visible, questions in google groups to help him. If I wanted spam advice I wouldnt use my real name and I would definetely not use google groups. 4. What my client does with his site is not my responisibility. You cant blaim all my other sites and customers because of his actions. If any other site of mine is found responsible for spamming then ok, but there isn't one. The only clue you have is the link from quasimodobell that points to my company. So What??? It is not a secret. You are not the Internet police and you are not responsible for saving the net from spammers. You do your work for wiki and if someone spams wiki then act accordingly. The only relation between the websites you mention is that they were created by me. But I dont own them all. I own finditgr coopdircom but thats not a secret either. Ban the website/ip/user that did the spamming. 5. Right now sites that I own, and my customers own are mentioned in wikipedia as related to spammers. Do you understand that you are accusing different people and companies for the actions of a specific person? You work for wikipedia, so ban-delete-attack anyone who attacks wikipedia. If you find a website that spams, that was created by a company that has created 2000 other websites will you accuse all these 2000 websites???? We are a small company and maybe that why you did what you did. If we were huge you wouldn't. But we will stand for our legal rights and for our customers rights too. Resolve this matter as soon as possible. And please read my post carefully. Starfish PK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.250.225 (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    OK, can you help us? Can you step through this list and specify who owns each of these sites?
    • araneous.gr
    • prisma.gr
    • coopdir.com
    • findit.gr
    • quasimodobell.wordpress.com
    • themallblog.com
    • e-write.gr
    • starfish.gr
    Also, can you point us towards the relevant domain registration entries? Thanks.
    I note that this spam campaign extended from mid-2006 through 2008 which includes the time period when you were promoting this site. Your IP traceroutes to the Democritus University of Thrace, which was also a source of quasimodobell promotion.
    As for your concern that we presume to be some sort of Internet spam police, the answer is that we don't. We just act to protect our own site. This blacklist covers the English Misplaced Pages only. Another blacklist covers all Wikimedia and many MediaWiki wikis; your links were not reported there since we did not find any evidence of link-spamming to other Wikimedia wikis.
    As for "working for" Misplaced Pages, I'm just a volunteer.
    --A. B. 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    This section is to report problems with the blacklist. Old entries are archived

    Discussion

    This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are archived

    archive script

    Eagle 101 said he had one running on meta, is it possible to get it up and going here?--Hu12 10:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    Would be good - Eagle hasn't been working on Meta for a while though & I've not seen anything (there was supposed to be a logging script too!) --Herby 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Great news, Ive written a script that can archive this page given the templates that we use, I can create a approved archive along with a rejected archive if people are interested. β 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    "Interested" - bit of an understatement there :) Great news - please feel free to help/supply the script. I tend to leave stuff around a week in case anyone shouts or adds more (archives once done should be left alone). How would you handle the "discussion" type bits? Cheers --Herby 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    First question, do you want approved and rejected request in separate archives? as for the discussions we could get Misza bot over here for things older than 30 days. β 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    I would think one archive, seperate sections, like it is currently, not sure if the script can do that, but if so, doubt there would be objections in implementation...--Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    There is no simple way of editing sections using the bot. (section editting is evil). it would just be one large archive. β 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

    blogspot.com

    See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam § Time_for_blacklisting_blogspot.com.2C_with_whitelisting_of_specific_domains.3F

    I added countingcrowsnew.blogspot.com, freemodlife.blogspot.com, and googlepackdownload.blogspot.com to the blacklist. I made a previous report about the blogspot sites and they're being spammed by the same blocked sockpuppet who I filed a report about here. Spellcast (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    Update: I've also added b5050-raffle.blogspot.com, gpd2008.blogspot.com, and itsleaked.blogspot.com. They were being spammed by the same blocked sock in that report. Spellcast (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    I'm inclined to blacklist the domain then whitelist where needed but some heavy flak is likely to arrive? --Herby 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    From an en:Misplaced Pages mission perspective (though possibly not your personal perspective:) a bigger issue than the flak that will be generated is the disruption to editing. I believe a lot of pages, particularly biographies of living people, contain legitimate links to the subject's blog - many of which are hosted on blogspot. Simply blacklisting and then waiting for whitelisting requests will likely
    1. overwhelm the whitelist page here and on meta (which given you are one of the most active admins on both, may not be ideal for you!)
    2. be confusing and frustrating to a lot of editors especially newbies, but also any who are not familiar with the blacklist/whitelist set up
    3. lead to a loss of legitimate links and legitimate edits as people struggle to work out whether to keep their edit and lose the link or the other way round while any whitelist request is ongoing.
    I think a move like that will take some careful planning and preparation to avoid these issues (might also help cut down some of the heat). One way or another, I think we need human editors to assess the current blogspot links on article pages and enter appropriate ones on the whitelist before the blacklisting goes into effect. I don't think such a move will cut out most of the flak though, so we might want to ensure there are other admins involved to help spread the weight, and a nicely presented page of evidence of the issues the domain causes to point people to.
    Blogspot certainly gets spammed a lot more than most domains, and I support blacklisting. But It's still a domain that has a lot of good links and I think it's important to think through how a move like that will impact people, and to adjust to the situation. -- SiobhanHansa 13:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    Briefly - needs quite a bit of thought but equally is worth that amount of thought --Herby 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    There are many, many legitimate links to the domain, not only to blogs belonging to article subjects but to blogs belonging to Misplaced Pages contributors. Better to blacklist individual blogs as needed. --bainer (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    Not sure why Misplaced Pages contributors would be adding their own blogs? A very limited number of blogs actualy meet WP:RS and even fewer still meet the requirements of WP:EL or are a blog that is the subject of the article or an official page of the articles subject. There are currently 32,916 blogspot.com Blog links on Misplaced Pages, if whitelisting even a thousand "legitimate links", its worth it.--Hu12 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    You've presented some convincing reasons to leave certain blog links out of Misplaced Pages, but not a reason to leave all blog links out. Misplaced Pages contributors might want to link to their blogs because, you know, it is possible for said contributors to frequent websites on the internet other than Misplaced Pages :P See WP:COMMUNITY. There is also a performance cost to whitelisting and blacklisting; as far as I can tell, 1000 whitelisted entries costs more computationally than 1000 blacklisted entries (instead of using one large regex, which is how the blacklist works, you're doing 1000 individual regex replacements). Gracenotes § 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    I was under the impression server load was something we were supposed to leave up to the developers to worry about. If they see an issue and ask for a reassessment that would be one thing, but its not a good argument against a tactic without their weight behind it.
    The suggestion isn't that all blogs should be banned. the suggestion is that this particular domain gets spammed so much it would be beneficial to the project to blacklist it and only white list the ones that are appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    Hu12 I think it's important not to overstate the case here. Not all of the ~32,000 links (assukming the 1K of good links estimate) that are not legitimate external links or citations will actually be harmful to Misplaced Pages. While editors' own blogs on their user pages aren't necessary to the project, in the vast majority of cases they do no harm and may help editors fell a bond that connects them to the project. Many more will be links from discussions and projects. While I don't think that's a reason for keeping a domain that is also being spammed so much - it's not the case that we do 32,000 links worth of "good" by removing them. For the most part we only really benefit from the spam and poorly placed article links that go. -- SiobhanHansa 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    (unindent, crosspost my post from WT:WPSPAM)

    The rule \bblogspot\.com is (currently) not on COIBot's monitorlist. Some of the sub-domains have been added via WT:WPSPAM, or have been caught by the automonitoring of COIBot (mainly because the name of the editor is the same as the name of the subdomain on blogspot.com).

    Still, a linksearch on the resolved IP of blogspot.com (72.14.207.191) results in a mere 118 results (all COIBot linkreports)! Often the multiple use of the single subdomains is not a cause for blacklisting, as they may only have been used once or twice. Also, I suspect there are tens of thousands of blogspot sub-domains out there, but these are only the links that are caught because the wiki username overlaps with the domainname of the subdomain (or have been reported here). Would this cumulative behaviour warrant blacklisting of \bblogspot\.com .. here, or even on meta? --Dirk Beetstra 12:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    Appropriate links may indeed be a problem, though the majority will fail some or many of the policies and guidelines here (or don't even have to be a notable fact, or do not need to be a working link while being mentioned; "Mr. X has a a blog on Blogspot.<ref>primary reliable source stating that the blog is the official blog</ref>"; we are not a linkfarm), and I would argue that the spam/coi part of the problem becomes a bit difficult to control... --Dirk Beetstra 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    Crosspost spamlink template for blogspot.com to link this discussion to the linkreports from COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra 10:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please try to remember how frustrating generic, unexpected spam blocks can be for new and incautious editors. Last time I "checked", if you make an edit with Internet Explorer and you post it directly without preview (two things you should never do), then if the spam blacklist comes up your text is gone. Back arrow gets you the original text of the article. Edits that die that way may not get remade, and they may sour the editor on further contributions. I don't think there should be any blocks on top-level domains or large general purpose Internet sites. 70.15.116.59 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have to disagree in this case - there's concern that the dynamic IP spamming it is using it to perpetrate scams or send out computer bugs. -Jéské 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    There's no way we can realistically do this. blogspot has an Alexa traffic rank of 12 - it's higher than Amazon.com - and has well over 30,000 links on en.wp alone. Adding this would be incredibly disruptive to thousands of articles. Unless someone wants to go through all 32,000 links to find the ones that can be kept so we can whitelist them, there's no way we can do this. The ones that are spam should be removed and blacklisted, but WP:EL and WP:RS are not very good reasons to completely forbid links to a domain. Mr.Z-man 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Though I agree that Misplaced Pages has a big blogspam problem, I also have to concede that there are too many legit blogspot links (e.g., bio subjects own blog) as SiobhanHansa noted. OhNoitsJamie 17:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    (unindent)blogspot.com is currently on User:XLinkBot's revert list. XLinkBot is designed to revert only non-autoconfirmed users, and will only do so a limited number of times. Assuming we emerge from our trial period, I think this would be an effective way of stemming the influx of inappropriate blogspot links. Established editors would still be able to add blogspot.com links and only new or changed links would be reverted - so it wouldn't interfere with non-autoconfirmed users editing pages that already contained a link. --Versageek 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    I do not support blacklisting the blogspot.com. It is too generic to be blindly blacklisted --Zache (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    Header

    I put the header in a template to reduce size of this request page and included MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist/Indicators which is loosly based off of RCU's indicators.--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

    Google "I'm feeling lucky"

    Would the following regexes work?

    • \bgoogle.com/search?.*&btnI
    • \bgoogle.com/search?btnI

    Random832 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Blacklist logging

    {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}} →(replacing '0' with the correct "oldid" (ie. permalink) example shown here).

    For example:

    {{WPSPAM|182728001#Blacklist_logging}}

    results in:

    See WikiProject Spam report

    This should aid in requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and for use with the entry log here. I've added a snipit in the header --Hu12 (talk)

    How to keep wiki free of spam

    I think that this "hub" of admins is a very interesting wiki-phenomenon. The rules ?guidelines? here are also very interesting, brief, (and uneditable?)

    • Does the site have any validity to the project?
    • Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Is there a Spam project report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    • Close the request entry on here using either  Done or  Not done as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.

    Here are my questions:

    • I wanted to know if there are other guidelines about what should be wiki-blacklisted.
    • Is there a general list of blacklisted wiki site? (Maybe this would be good for my e-mail spam filter, for example??)
    • Do links that are blacklisted have to fit all the above criteria? Only one? Case by case?
    • How long after something is marked  Done is it kept here before archiving?
    • If an admin puts a website on the blacklist... and that site is then discussed under Proposed removals... can the same admin keep it black listed and call it  Done? Or could that be perceived as a conflict of interest for the admin him/herself?
    • How are the archives organized? How can I search them easily?
    • Can you point me to some disputed blacklisted sites? (disputed amongst admins?) Or are things always clear cut.
    • Does a proposed removal need only one vote from one admin?
    • is there a way on wiki to have voting? (has this been tried)??? i.e.: three admins must agree for x & y to happen? almost like a jury? Or are decisions on wikipedia made without jury - and only by judge (i.e.: admin).
    • In this initiative... have there been cases where the admin was found to be biased? Or found to have ulterior motives?

    I think this is really fascinating, and am considering doing a review of blacklisted sites to better understand how the process works. What happens to these sites? What % are challenged? What % are manipulated to avoid detection? How many (if any) get removed from the blacklist - and if so, when? Of those that are removed, how many are removed by the original blacklisting admin? Any statistics here?? It is my guess that most of blacklisted sites stay blacklisted forever... but that some are troublesome and keep coming up with ways to try to beat the system. Is that true? What has been done to prevent this? Would anyone be able or interested in helping me with this? Or offering other suggestions of what to look at? Sign your username: Newtowiki2 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    You raise some interesting questions that probably needed asking. Here's my unofficial two cents
    1. Relevant guidelines and policies:
      1. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist (guideline)
      2. Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not (policy)
      3. Misplaced Pages:External links (guideline)
        • Covers links listed at the end of an article
      4. Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources (guideline)
      5. Misplaced Pages:Spam (guideline)
        • Note that inappropriate linking is spam -- it does not have to be commercial
      6. Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest (guideline)
      7. Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace
    2. Blacklists:
      1. MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist
        • The blacklist for the English Misplaced Pages ("en.wikipedia") only
        • Fairly new -- before, bad en.wikipedia spam was blacklisted at meta (see below)
      2. meta:Spam blacklist "meta"
        • Has been around for several years
        • Maintained on Meta-Wiki
        • If we find spam has been spread "cross-wiki" (i.e., to Wiktionary, other Wikipedias, etc) we list it there.
    3. When I think a link should be blacklisted
      1. Spammer knows our rules and spams anyway
        1. Usually I assume this means 3 or 4 warnings; I may shortcut that if
          1. The problem is big enough
          2. The spammer is using open proxies
          3. The spammer is disruptive in other ways
          4. The spammer is involved in off-wikipedia discussions of how to bypass our spam defenses
          5. The spammer never uses the same IP twice and there's just no way to warn him
      2. Cross-wiki spam usually gets taken to meta immediately
      3. URL redirection domains such as tinyurl.com get blacklisted on sight at meta
      4. Sites that attack or attempt to breach the privacy of Misplaced Pages editors may be blacklisted
    4. Listing sites here, then blacklisting, then adjudicating their possible removal:
      1. If it's controversial, I'll ask someone else to get involved. Everything is transparent and so if I just try to hide a poor decision under the rug, it will blow up in my face.
      2. If it appears open and shut (buyviagra.com or getrichquick.net), I just go ahead and handle it. 95+% of spam falls in this category.
    5. Recordkeeping:
      1. Blacklisting additions are supposed to be logged at meta:Spam blacklist/Log or MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log
      2. Some local blacklisting is done based on discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam‎, not on this page
      3. Note that some spam goes on the blacklist not from this page but from discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam‎
    6. Other methods of spam control:
      1. Bots are nice when they work
      2. Blocking is a waste of time; spammers just get new IP addresses or user names
      3. Page protection is disruptive
      4. Blacklisting is efficient and minimizes disruption
    There's a lot more I could write but I'm out of time. I hope this helps. It's just my opinion. --A. B. 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you again for these thoughts. I have tried to organize this into a table.
    Question Answer/ Discussion Comments
    I wanted to know if there are other guidelines about what should be wiki-blacklisted.
      1. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist (guideline)
      2. Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not (policy)
      3. Misplaced Pages:External links (guideline)
        • Covers links listed at the end of an article
      4. Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources (guideline)
      5. Misplaced Pages:Spam (guideline)
        • Note that inappropriate linking is spam -- it does not have to be commercial
      6. Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest (guideline)
      7. Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace
    Thanks! This is very helpful!
    Is there a general list of blacklisted wiki site? (Maybe this would be good for my e-mail spam filter, for example??)
      1. MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist
        • The blacklist for the English Misplaced Pages ("en.wikipedia") only
        • Fairly new -- before, bad en.wikipedia spam was blacklisted at meta (see below)
      2. meta:Spam blacklist "meta"
        • Has been around for several years
        • Maintained on Meta-Wiki
        • If we find spam has been spread "cross-wiki" (i.e., to Wiktionary, other Wikipedias, etc) we list it there.
    ?? Maybe I don't know how to look at this... but is this the full list? It looks like just the "b"'s??
    Do links that are blacklisted have to fit all the above criteria? Only one? Case by case?
      1. Spammer knows our rules and spams anyway
        1. Usually I assume this means 3 or 4 warnings; I may shortcut that if
          1. The problem is big enough
          2. The spammer is using open proxies
          3. The spammer is disruptive in other ways
          4. The spammer is involved in off-wikipedia discussions of how to bypass our spam defenses
          5. The spammer never uses the same IP twice and there's just no way to warn him
      2. Cross-wiki spam usually gets taken to meta immediately
      3. URL redirection domains such as tinyurl.com get blacklisted on sight at meta
      4. Sites that attack or attempt to breach the privacy of Misplaced Pages editors may be blacklisted
      5. Listing sites here, then blacklisting, then adjudicating their possible removal:

    If it's controversial, I'll ask someone else to get involved. Everything is transparent and so if I just try to hide a poor decision under the rug, it will blow up in my face. If it appears open and shut (buyviagra.com or getrichquick.net), I just go ahead and handle it. 95+% of spam falls in this category.

    Are sites that may be controversial always listed here before blacklisting - to provide a forum for discussion? Or are there examples where they went directly to the blacklist? The 95% is clear cut. It is the remaining 5% that I want to flush out to better understand
    How long after something is marked  Done is it kept here before archiving?
    ??
    If an admin puts a website on the blacklist... and that site is then discussed under Proposed removals... can the same admin keep it black listed and call it  Done? Or could that be perceived as a conflict of interest for the admin him/herself?
    ?? This seems like a great oportunity to keep things "clean." In an ideal world, one admin would identify spam and vote to a blacklist... a separate admin would place on proposed blacklist... and if contested - the case should be reviewed by a third admin who is 'impartial'. I do not see any discussion of this type of protocol (or similar). Do you think such efforts are unnecessary? Too burdensome on the admins? (I do not think this is needed on the 95%... only talking about the 5% here)
    How are the archives organized? How can I search them easily?
    ??
    Can you point me to some disputed blacklisted sites? (disputed amongst admins?) Or are things always clear cut.
    ?? How do I weed out the 5%???
    Does a proposed removal need only one vote from one admin?
    (Not talking about the 95% of things that are obvious - like viagra, etc. More interested in the 5%)
    It would seem the answer is that only one vote from one admin is needed (and that could be the same admin that placed the site on the blacklist) Is that correct???
    is there a way on wiki to have voting? (has this been tried)??? i.e.: three admins must agree for x & y to happen? almost like a jury? Or are decisions on wikipedia made without jury - and only by judge (i.e.: admin).
    ??
    In this initiative... have there been cases where the admin was found to be biased? Or found to have ulterior motives?
    ??
    What happens to these sites? What % are challenged? What % are manipulated to avoid detection? How many (if any) get removed from the blacklist - and if so, when? Of those that are removed, how many are removed by the original blacklisting admin? Any statistics here?? It is my guess that most of blacklisted sites stay blacklisted forever... but that some are troublesome and keep coming up with ways to try to beat the system. Is that true? What has been done to prevent this? Would anyone be able or interested in helping me with this? Or offering other suggestions of what to look at?
    ?? What is the best way to sort this all out?

    Ultimatly, we can all agree about the 95%. I want to better understand how the Spam-blacklist affects the 5%. Clearly the spam-blacklist plays a key roll in managing the 95%. Was this list intended for the 5% in the first place? What about having every new external link go to a pool that requires review by an admin? This way, we would catch spam before/as it happens? And would perhaps prevent or discourage those from trying to spam? Or is this also too burdensom on the admins, and risks slowing down the rapid growth of some articles? Newtowiki2 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    Ariel article problem

    February 12, 2008 I cannot add the internal links, Starting Out In The Eveningor actress Lili Taylor to the Ariel article. They are already in your system. Why are they blacklisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborrahh (talkcontribs) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    The problem was not with the internal links. There was a blacklisted external link I just removed which blocked editing the page. Try it now. --A. B. 02:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Resolved


    Friends Cyber Club - friendscyberclub.com My social networking site seems to be banned by wikipedia, can you please remove it from your black list, i have taken a proper care of the site, cleaned it completely, also edited the picture of the member galleries, now member pictures will only appear once the admin approves it. Now friends cyber club is completely clean, will make sure no one spams our site too! i think it is ready for removing it from the blacklist at wiki!

    Looking foreword to this, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.77.5 (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    Categories:
    MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions Add topic