MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2012

= Proposed Additions =

www.makingsenseofcents.com
All coming from . The IP added the same link to three unrelated articles. I already reverted them. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Limited to one IP with no previous or recurring abuse --Hu12 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

newageislam.com

 * Opinion blog by a group of South Asian Muslims seeking to reform and make more progressive the political culture of Islam. May be a noble ideal, but seems to me to totally fail our standards of NPOV and notability. Ansdub persists in adding links to this site on any discussion of Islamic topics, even though repeatedly warned and given one short block. First time I've tried to do this, so I apologize in advance for any methodological shortcomings. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinion blog by a group of South Asian Muslims seeking to reform and make more progressive the political culture of Islam. May be a noble ideal, but seems to me to totally fail our standards of NPOV and notability. Ansdub persists in adding links to this site on any discussion of Islamic topics, even though repeatedly warned and given one short block. First time I've tried to do this, so I apologize in advance for any methodological shortcomings. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinion blog by a group of South Asian Muslims seeking to reform and make more progressive the political culture of Islam. May be a noble ideal, but seems to me to totally fail our standards of NPOV and notability. Ansdub persists in adding links to this site on any discussion of Islamic topics, even though repeatedly warned and given one short block. First time I've tried to do this, so I apologize in advance for any methodological shortcomings. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Other people are adding the links besides just Ansdub. One, for instance, is an established editor,.


 * I think this site is more than a "blog" -- it's apparently weakly notable. with a growing profile and some notable writers. The Hindu has a long, interesting profile on the publication. It's possible New Age Islam might be used as a reference in the same way editors use political or religious opinion magazines like Commonweal, The Nation, L'Osservatore Romano, The Spectator or Quadrant -- not as a traditional reporter of facts but as a reliable reference when citing the positions of notable persons writing in the publication.


 * I am reluctant to blacklist this domain now, especially since blacklisting here could get noticed by search engine staff investigating possible linkspammers.


 * Having said this, you have a vexing situation. We have a bot that can be used to revert link additions under certain conditions; let's try that first. It can be set to block link additions by anonymous or new users.


 * Thanks for dealing with this problem.


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

newbooksinbrief.com
Personal website repeatedly added to book articles, often with large chunks of copied text. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 18:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious Text dumping WP:CITESPAM with the author of the site going by the blogname "The Book Reporter" (newbooksinbrief.com/about/), WP:COI. Seems this is a single account incident in which the account is now blocked. I'm reluctant to add it, unless there is continued attempts to spam under multiple accounts. If spamming resumes, we should reconsider. (for now). Thanks for reporting Yunshui. --Hu12 (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

fu-vision.com
Domain: Spammed article: Accounts:

Persistent addition of this person's company website to the article. Can this be blacklisted? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for reporting.--Hu12 (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

printsasia.com printsasia.co.uk
This user appears to be doing nothing but spamming Wikipedia. He's had received multiple warnings as you can see on his warning page. The page he is spamming are



and



Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a case for meta, as COIBot tells me 'Wikis where printsasia.com has been added: w:en (36), w:as (4), w:pa (1), w:ml (1), w:af (1), w:bn (1), w:sa (1), w:la (1)'.   --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

imexa.org
Domain: Spammed article: Accounts: Persistent addition of a training institute's website into the article. Can this be blacklisted? Thanks. DVdm (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Long term persistent, multi account spamming. . thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - Ip just made another attempt:
 * Question: I have reverted the edit, but, as the link was blacklisted 4 days ago, would a bot have undone this last edit if I wouldn't have been so fast? - DVdm (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, a bot wouldn't have reverted it because there should be no need -- if it's already blacklisted it isn't possible to add a blacklisted link. The IP got around the blacklist by not including the 'http' part of the link.
 * The link revert bot here is called XLinkBot, and imexa.org would have to be added to that bot's own blacklist for it to revert spamlinks, but XLinkBot wouldn't have caught this either because if there's no 'http' prefix, it's just a string of text and not a hyperlink. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, that makes sense, thanks. I guess we'll have to keep the page on wachtlist and revert until they get tired of trying. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, that makes sense, thanks. I guess we'll have to keep the page on wachtlist and revert until they get tired of trying. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

newcivilisation.com
Domain: Accounts: Refspammer, likes to add rambling quotes from fairly unknown commentators while calling them 'prominant political scientist's. Always uses a fresh account/sock on each new article, presumably to avoid scrutiny. - MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

AdSense pub-8051308276480403
Caution: Probably NSFW (I haven't checked).


 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Dec 1


 * Sites spammed

Somewhat related domains:


 * Spammers

MER-C 08:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, also added the related due to previous related abuse.--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

f1deals.com
So far in the past 24 hours this has been added by two different IPs:

And two new user single purpose accounts:

The later user claims that he was told to add the link to Formula One related articles, and despite being told not to continue to do so, went on a spree of adding the link to various other Formula One-related articles, before being followed by further anonymous IP edits. Since this user or users appear to want to continue to spam this link despite warnings, I believe it should be blacklisted to easily stop them in their tracks. The359 ( Talk ) 08:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just blocked another six single purpose accounts who were spamming this link. Rather than continuing to play whack-a-sock, a quick response on this one would be appreciated.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Indeed. If you are in any doubt as to the prolific nature of these spammers please take a look at the last few days activity here. This needs stopping now, please.  Pyrop e  00:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Account list:

Support blacklisting. MER-C 02:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much :). Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC).

brickleberry.net
Interesting pairing: adult video cam site and a children's cartoon site. Link-hijacking: -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Raised by the Stars" book spam


Spam originates in the Montgomery, Alabama area.

Spam promotes the book, "Raised by the Stars", and its author.

-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

graduateinjapan.com

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Jan 1


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 10:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Lisa Stansfield Experience

 * Previous incidents
 * The same site, one unofficiale and unreliable fansite on the singer, has been spammed on many other wikis. The "case" started on italian wikipedia, and has been object of and edit war even here and on es.wiki


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

--Valerio79 (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * en:Special:Contributions/151.71.181.73
 * it:Special:Contributions/83.149.155.30
 * it:Special:Contributions/151.40.68.19
 * es:Special:Contributions/80.20.127.76
 * it:Special:Contributions/80.20.127.76
 * en:Special:Contributions/80.20.127.76
 * es:Special:Contributions/151.19.213.181
 * it:Special:Contributions/151.19.213.181
 * en:Special:Contributions/151.19.213.181
 * es:Special:Contributions/87.2.28.156
 * it:Special:Contributions/87.2.28.156
 * de:Special:Contributions/87.2.28.156
 * it:Special:Contributions/87.0.121.79
 * en:Special:Contributions/87.0.121.79
 * , I've requested Global blacklisting--Hu12 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Meta Blacklisting--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * it:Special:Contributions/87.2.28.156
 * de:Special:Contributions/87.2.28.156
 * it:Special:Contributions/87.0.121.79
 * en:Special:Contributions/87.0.121.79
 * , I've requested Global blacklisting--Hu12 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Meta Blacklisting--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Meta Blacklisting--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

ebaliholiday.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 12:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

kompenz-elastic.com

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Jul 2


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

More blacklist evasion. MER-C 11:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

isbf.edu.in
Serial spamming from multiple IP addresses, multiple times in business education related articles.



These needed a /16 range block, which I have done until 11/12, but it's a bit too large for a long-term block. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One more;
 * Range
 * --Hu12 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The block I put on that range has expired. If the spam appears again, I'm adding this to the list. ~
 * --Hu12 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The block I put on that range has expired. If the spam appears again, I'm adding this to the list. ~

Amatulić (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It has appeared again. . ~Amatulić (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It has appeared again. . ~Amatulić (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.*
srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com has already been in the blacklist for over a year. Apparently Blogger/Blogspot sites are now reachable from other TLDs (srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.jp, srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.de, etc.) and as reported at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard editors have been able to post links to the blog using these alternative URLs. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd be in favor of either of these alternatives:
 * Globally replace the string "blogspot\.com" with "blogspot\.[a-z]+" in the blacklist. This would affect dozens of entries.
 * Blacklist all of blogspot.* and white-list on a case-by-case basis.
 * The second option is my preferred option but others may view that as a bit extreme. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see now that there are a lot of other Blogspot sites in the blacklist; I suppose your proposals are meant to deal with all of them en masse rather than srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com in particular. The first option is the least drastic change, as it affects only those blogs which are already in the list.  The second option would greatly simplify the list in its present form, as it would replace some 350 lines with a single entry.  However, I wonder how much collateral damage that might cause—surely there must be a lot of Wikipedia articles where a legitimate external link is provided to the subject's official Blogspot blog.  Whitelisting all of these legitimate links on a case-by-case basis might end up being more work than blacklisting the spammy ones on a case-by-case basis. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points, and yes the first option is the least drastic. In my observation, most people notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article also tend to have their own blog on their own site, and don't use blogspot. Therefore I think the collateral damage would be minimal.
 * Also, I could be wrong, but my understanding of the way the blacklist code works is that any existing blogspot links wouldn't be affected even if they happened to be in someone's edit; the blacklist would trigger if the link was somehow changed (moved to a different place, or deleted and then attempted to be restored).
 * For now, consider your request ✅ for the link you referenced; I just modified the entry. I'd like to see comments from other admins before performing either of the two things I proposed above. 22:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the blacklist apply to userspace as well? If so, blacklisting all of Blogspot might prevent a lot of editors from linking to their own blogs on their own user pages.  I don't know how many such links already exist, since the link search tool can't be restricted by namespace. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just tried adding a blacklisted domain to my userspace. Yes, it applies there as well. I thought the blacklist applied only to article space. In that case my second proposal is indeed too drastic. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

india-forums.com
I propose that india-forums.com be added to the blacklist as per the recent discussion on WP:RSN. In summary, this website is "an established television discussion forum" and "an online youth networking site" which is not a reliable source. Many (most?) of the links to these forums have been added to various Indian TV articles by sockpuppets and anonymous IPs. It's also the source of a disturbing number of copyright violations (both in the sense that the forums host copyright-infringing text, which is then linked to from a Wikipedia article; or else non-free text from the forum is copied and pasted into Wikipedia, sometimes including a link to the original post), and has been the subject of spam reports. I submit that there is no legitimate encyclopedic purpose for any links to this website, but they're being added faster than informed editors are able to find and remove them on WP:COPYVIO, WP:LINKVIO, WP:RS, and WP:LINKSPAM grounds. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * . Lots of cleanup still needed in main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Meatspin.com and 67.55.108.167


Meatspin.com is a pornographic shock site. It has repeatedly been linked directly by its IP address, as http: //67.55.108.167. Both the domain name and the IP should be blacklisted. As far as I know, all links have been revision deleted, but a few examples, posted by one account and two IPs, are, , and. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both, thanks. --Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

gsmarc.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 12:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Continuing. MER-C 00:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

mobilephonedealshop.co.uk

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Related domains


 * Spammers

Plain text spamming too. MER-C 13:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

ticketsroundtheworld.com
On :


 * Spammers

VQuakr (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * more from Go Fly World Inc.
 * thanks for reporting--Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for reporting--Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for reporting--Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

AdSense pub-6522157377920590

 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

kreativetravelindia.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 12:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

UltrabooksReview.com
Hi, I was trying to add a link to page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrabook and found that it is not possible. I thereby request the Wiki admins to review the site and remove it from the blacklist. Thank you. 18:11, 24 November 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drughi1993 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 November 2012‎
 * Sock request--Hu12 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fotolia.com
It appears that this link was blacklisted in March 2008 because someone spammed Wikipedia with their affiliate links in order to earn affiliate revenue. In subsequent years, this company has become notable, has a Wikipedia page (Fotolia) and this link should be added to the company infobox. --Veryreal (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * , as I see no use for other links from the site other than a single on in the infobox. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Soundproof
Soundproof Magazine has ended up on the spam blacklist...this is a Montreal music magazine. Can someone please point me toward the discussion that led to this site's blacklisting? Chubbles (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Using the archive search in the header of this page turns up MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2009. Anomie⚔ 01:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, according to this discussion, the link was proposed for blocking due to COI spamming issues, which is fair...but it notes that the site was used as a legitimate reference by nonaffiliated editors, and the site is now out of business (which likely solves the spamming issue). Given that it was a third-party music magazine covering independent Canadian music, is it worth my time to campaign for its unblocking, or is the red tape here likely to be time-consuming? Chubbles (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heres the request. If a specific link is needed as a citation, you can request it on the whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Chubbles, you say "the site is now out of business". Would you explain that? It seems to be working just fine, all the way down to copyright notices that pre-date the blacklisting &mdash; and, their 'about' page still lists Chris Stevenson, one of the acknowledged spammers, as a co-founder. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I missed that this request got moved and only just came back to it. I was on their mailing list and they sent out a notice earlier this year that they were no longer publishing new articles, though the site would continue to function. (Since they don't date their articles, I guess that may not be immediately apparent on the site). They did publish a fair bit of useful review/interview material on Canadian musicians, and while I don't know anything about Stevenson (is this his only site or was he spamming multiple sources? Is he still active?), I do wish I could use the site's material generally for improving musical artist articles. Chubbles (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr Stevenson spammed from an IP address (evidence here) so I have no idea if he's still active or what other sites he has.
 * Unless I missed something, I didn't see any indication that the site has been idled. If it's true and it can be verified that the founders have moved on to other ventures, then it may be reasonable to de-list it, because it's unlikely that future abuse would occur. Until we learn more, it may be best to judiciously to white-list individual links. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Gayot
This is a request to remove gayot.com from the blacklist. After reading the reasons we were blacklisted, we feel that the blacklisting is not necessary anymore because it is understood that link spamming and single purpose accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia and we will have no part in self promotion or accounts that do such things. We only ask that our blacklist be removed so people inquiring information about GAYOT can find information about our company on Wikipedia. We also ask that our blacklist be lifted in case a page admin for a restaurant or hotel would like to add any accolades they receive from us on their Wiki page and be able to properly cite the information.

Reason for blacklisting: # Ckatz # heavy spamming of site by multiple SPAs; use as :reference" as rationale for link spam

.--jdgayot (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Jdgayot (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)jdgayot


 * People inquiring information about Gayot can already look at the Wikipedia article on Gayot, which already contains a link to gayot.com. A restaurant or hotel adding accolades about themselves would be considered self-promotion in contravention of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and grounds for continued blacklisting.
 * Furthermore, we do not remove sites from the blacklist at the request of the site owner or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor determines that gayot.com should be used as a reference, then we will consider a request from that editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Harry's Place
I think this should be de-blacklisted (see an earlier discussion here), currently only the front page of the main and subdomain sites are permitted. Alexbrn (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to think we should have a /Common requests link like over at the whitelist page.
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2011 (original blacklist report)
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2011
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2012
 * Why should a blog that has been abusive in the past be de-listed? It's not like blogs are considered reliable sources, you know; see WP:ELNO. Why would the entire site need to be available for linking when only a couple pages on it are necessary for use on Wikipedia? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the site itself had not been abusive, but that one rogue Wikipedia editor had abused the site by spamming links to it (in an attempt to get it black-listed?) &mdash; but I find the previous technical discussions a bit opaque, so would be grateful if you could clarify. As to citing blogs, of course you are correct in general. But there are blogs and there are blogs: and this is (despite its name) a multi-author site which ranks reasonably prominently in the UK political scene, and which is reasonably frequently mentioned within Wikipedia &mdash; which is probably why there has been an editorial consensus to cite it, in no doubt exceptional cases, on occasion. In any event, as I understand it, Wikipedia policy is to discourage unfounded citing of blogs, not to blacklist them. I came across this problem trying to improve the Harry's Place article itself by citing some of its own posts (surely a legitimate goal), but could not because of the blacklisting. Is there at least some way to permit that?  Alexbrn 07:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It does not have a site-owner who spams the site, it could be another party (e.g. an SEO), or one of the bloggers on the site who do it. The spam blacklist is used to stop the abuse.  Claiming Joe jobs is not necessarily the way forward either, that could be claimed for any site (and still, that is reason to blacklist the site, it stops the abuse of Wikipedia).  In any case, the whitelist should be the measure there, if there are multiple sources from this site useful there should be multiple granted whitelisting requests (across multiple articles, not all on one, so it shows general use - see ), which would make the inclination to remove it from the blacklist bigger.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 08:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Beetstra. I'm afraid I am (blissfully?) ignorant of the dark arts of spamming/vandalism/SEO &mdash; so am not quite sure how the Joe jobs phenomenon applies here. Having looked at this a bit more, as I understand it (from this) it was these five 'purely disruptive' edits that triggered the initial blacklisting, made by User:Runtshit, who is at this time banned from editing Wikipedia. I note that the Admin who made the black-listing subsequently suggested modifying it to list only the single URL which had been targeted. I also notice in the trail of comments there is a meta-concern that the blacklisting system was gamed by User:Runtshit in order to get the article blacklisted. But maybe that is conspiracism, if it's even possible: from this it seems to me that in fact User:Runtshit was just a vandal drawn to articles which touched on, inter alia, Arab/Israeli issues, and his obsessions unfortunately happened to overlap with hurryupharry.org for these edits. Anyway, I take it the solution for my refused edits to the page itself, is to request whitelisting for the links to hurrupharry.org that they target &hellip;  Alexbrn 10:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What you describe, someone intentionally spamming a site in order to induce blacklisting of a concurrent or disliked website, is basically Joe jobbing, which seems to be the case here (we've had it before, and sites have been blacklisted for that reason so we could control the damage). When was this originally blacklisted?  Maybe we should consider an attempt to remove it - blacklistings don't have to be infinite (and the site is on our radar anyway, some de-blacklistings can have an expiry date as well ...).  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 11:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (Side note: having limited myself pretty much to content edits on Wikipedia I am amazed, following the event trail here, to see how much damage one badly-behaved user could generate!) Anyway: the blacklisting was done by Admin User:NawlinWiki here, and first discussed (so far as I can see) here. Piecing the various bits of this puzzle together, I now reckon there was nothing calculated in the behaviour which led to the blacklisting &mdash; rather, it looks like noted vandal User:Runtshit went on a spree one day, and since he happened to be using a link to hurryupharry.org, the whole domain got "caught in the crossfire" of the subsequent black-listing. It seems a series of slight miscommunications/misunderstandings since then have meant this initial overly-draconian blacklisting has stood &hellip; and the overly-draconian nature of it is indicated by the fact that various editors have queried it over time, as noted above by Amatulić. So I think I agree with User:NawlinWiki's thought (expressed shortly after making the initial blacklist entry) that the blacklisting be limited to the particular link used in the vandalism (if indeed that is still even necessary).  Alexbrn 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk.to
I don't understand why this website has been blocked. I tried to find the reasons for it's blacklisting but was unable to find any. It is a only a chat and communication software, there isn't any real need to block it, is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.78.27 (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was blocked globally in January 2009 as a url redirector (a site like bit.ly or goo.gl). It may be that since then it has been repurposed, sold, or expired and bought by someone else. At any rate, since you'll need to request unblocking there to have it unblocked. Anomie⚔ 15:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

educationupdate.com
This is the URL for a newspaper about education in New York City. The newspaper has an article about it at Education Update. I reviewed en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log and don't find it listed there so I am clueless on why it was ever blocked.--96.232.126.27 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is blocked globally, apparently after this discussion at Meta. To get it unblocked you'll have to raise the issue there, so follow this link: . Anomie⚔ 15:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * thanks for response. unblocking procedure entails overly byzantine protocol for my rather-simple mind.  guess it'll stay blocked.--96.232.126.27 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

examiner.com
Really? The San Francisco Examiner!! There's nothing in the log about it. Please unlist because it's a major newspaper, and so I can fix the broken citation at Rockstar (drink). I can't grok much of the COIBot page. What I see is what seem to be lots of false positive hits related to Thetwilightexaminer just because it containes 'examiner'. ???  It's not The Gray Lady, but hell, even she isn't hersslf these days! :-)  UPDATE: I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2012#Question_blacklisting_of_Examiner.com_as_spam_site.  I guess individual URLs will need to be whitelisted IF they are true, but I see no evidence cited by the closing admin to support the claims about The Examiner. And if they're verifiable, then some mention of them is probably warranted in the article on the paper!  At the moment, I'm reading it's not a RS because it's blacklisted, and it's blacklisted because it's not a RS - and that's illogical circular reasoning. -Psrq (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The website of The San Francisco Examiner is http://www.sfexaminer.com/. examiner.com is something entirely different. Also note that examiner.com is not considered a reliable source because it accepts articles from anyone with limited or no editorial oversight, and is blocked in part because it pays people based on pageviews which is an incentive for people to spam links to their articles. Anomie⚔ 11:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * AHA! Thank you!  Sorry for the confusion.  The examiner link I was concerned about was regarding homophobia, and dead (but archived elsewhere w/o the banner so I thought it was the SF paper.  COULD AN ADMIN PLEASE ADD AN ENTRY TO THE LOG with an entry for examiner.com? As I said, there isn't one.  Clearly there should be; the archives of this page show it comes up a lot.  Also, you re-stated the claims that the closing admin said, but didn't address my concern that they are verifiable.  -Psrq (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There has always been a log entry for examiner.com and yes, it comes up allot. Search the archives. --Hu12 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I find no log entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log#Logging_entries_on_the_blacklist.  What entry in what log? Users are now advised to search.  UPDATE: It looks like there may be something wrong with the rendering or serving of that page.  It's a problem if you direct users to search a log and point them to a page that they can't actually search, at least in the normal way. --Psrq (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit the section headers. There is a search feature at the top of this page. If you search "examiner.com" without the quotes, you'll get a bunch of related requests. The answer you seek is in the very first result ("MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2009 (section Examiner.com)"). or just look in the October 2009 log. Sorry your having issues. The discussion is now off topic, which itself appears to have been also confused. Closing as    --Hu12 (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

CGAP.org
CGAP is an organization that is a source of information on microfinance, financial inclusion, branchless banking and other related topics. CGAP is cited on many wikipedia pages, including Branchless Banking, Microfinance, M-Pesa, Banking Agent, mobile payments in India, and others. CGAP.org is not a spam site. The site recently relaunched and some citations on Wikipedia now lead to broken URLs. I am attempting to fix this. It's not clear to me why this site was blacklisted in 2008. Now, 4 years later, I would like to correct any problems that may have resulted from the site's relaunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stag05 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 November 2012‎
 * It was blacklisted because multiple accounts were spamming related sites; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jan_1. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Spam Articles
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Years of spam and promotional abuse and exploitation of Wikipedia by this group. Microfinance Gateway, is a project of CGAP and just one example of their multi year campaign. Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them.Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site. --Hu12 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I was not involved in "years of spam" and I am not trying to promote a site. I am simply trying to repair dead links. I am not associated with Microfinance Gateway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stag05 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Not involved? Here are a few examples of you spamming CGAP.org; . Since that time you had no other edits otther than attempt to get CGAP.org de-listed and your spam article about CGAP.org un-deleted. Since you've added "Hi, my name is Erin" to your userpage, aits reevent to mention the press release you created yesterday actualy states;"Contact: Erin ..". cgap.org/about/people/erin-scronce ...WP:NOPAY Applies to Marketing Managers.--Hu12 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Analog Pussy
I am currently trying to improve the wikipedia page on this band, and despite the name, there is nothing pornographic about it.(if that's why it was black listed) That is their official site, and currently their bandcamp page is listed as their official site, which really makes me OCD. I'm trying to make this is accurate as I can, and I can't do that without listing their official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobbo256 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This site is blacklisted at Meta, caught by the listing  which is presumably there to stop porn site spam. Your best bet is probably to go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, point out that the site is being caught by that regex from Meta, and repeat your request above.  Anomie⚔ 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

CSS properties trigger the blacklist
I was creating a  on a page when I triggered the blacklist filter by changing its CSS properties. I entered the following code:

Here is the error message:


 * The following link has triggered a protection filter:overflow:auto;  height:

I was able to bypass the filter by adding a property between the two, but I don't think this is supposed to happen.

Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am unsure what triggered the filter - you mean the part where you put the comment? If it is within the nowiki-tags as you put it, you can write out the whole text that you put there, it will be ignored by the spam blacklist filter.  Was there a link in the css?  Can you show us the page?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * overflow:auto; height: – excluding the comment and extra space (I had to do this to avoid the filter when posting here). It seems like it happens with or without the nowiki tags. Sorry, but I don't have an example anymore because I changed the page. No, there were no links in the CSS. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite the message generated, this has nothing to do with MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The message you saw was caused by a match against $wgSpamRegex in the server configuration. BTW, your userpage formatting is incredibly annoying, as it blocks view of half the page. Anomie⚔ 22:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it comes from the server config., how can this problem be avoided? I don't know what you are saying is blocking on my user page, but I think I may have improved it (I was trying some fixed div tests to see how they looked). –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was your talk page, sorry. You [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymouse321&diff=519103950&oldid=519073519 took out the ] so now it's good. As you noted, the rule in the server configuration specifically blocks   (with a few whitespace variations), so getting around it is easy enough. The only way to get that changed is to talk to the System administrators, either by going to IRC  or by opening a bug in Bugzilla. Anomie⚔ 04:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

= Discussion =