This is an archive of past discussions about MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, for the period September 2014 (index). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm sorry that Heicth is not happy with these pages being on Wikipedia. These links are related to a very contentious debate about the practice of Dorje Shugden. To my knowledge, these links have never been inserted in an attempt to "spam" pages, but have been used to present the views of the organizations campaigning for religious freedom for Shugden practitioners. For example, how can westernshugdensociety.org be considered a "spam" link on the page Western Shugden Society, a WP page entirely devoted to discussing this organization. All editors need to be careful to use reliable sources, especially on these disputed issues, but there's no basis for listing these links as spam. Each edit should be treated individually. --Peaceful5 (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Spammers like these repeatedly add fansite (www.southharmoninstituteoftechnology.org) to the article Accepted. The link needs to be blacklisted. Requesting page protection as well.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
If page protection can solve the problem, then that is generally a first line of defense. If it goes on beyond that blacklisting would be an option. --Dirk BeetstraTC06:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The page is now protected, however, I think the link needs to be blacklisted to prevent future spamming. It has been going on for years and I have had enough of it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It looks like protection has indeed solved the problem for now. Declined, please re-report and I will protect for longer next time. MER-C12:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
free-steam-cards.com
Referral spam site, no reason why we would ever link to this site.[1][2]
Not done - Reports show no evidence of this site actually being spammed anywhere, we can't possibly add every site that might spam... Zad6802:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Since January 2014 multiple IPs and one user have been trying to introduce this link to multiple articles either as an EL or a ref, sometimes accompanied by direct copy/paste from the website. Site is personal and non-expert. Links are added to WP coinciding with website blog postings. While the registered editor has not edited since May, IPs are reverting deletion of link (June and Premier Rose Diamond) as of today. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Deferred to Meta, small cross-wiki aspect to this, but the editor clearly shows no willingness to discuss and stop while discussing and the need to delete this discussion. I have not much hope that after local blacklisting the target will not shift definitely. --Dirk BeetstraTC03:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep. The next step is a block (which I seriously considered doing, but there is nothing since the last warning). Declined, please let me know if spamming recommences. MER-C12:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
All edits were reverted. There are not any other edits than spam. Domain webmaster deleting old reference links and adding his website links only. Not adding sources which are useful.
I have seen an anon and two new accounts try to add it over the past few days. Since it's a WordPress site, the URL may change and perhaps *.biggboss8contestants.* should be added instead. I don't watch this page so if you need me, please ping me. Maheen Rao :I think it is very prejudicial of you to assume just because a site uses WordPress that it has no credibility as a reliable source, much less that it should be blocked as spam as you seem to be proposing. On the rough overview of this site, it looks like a topical news aggregation site. It would be devastating to Wikipedia for us to block all these kinds of sites based on such superficial prejudice.
@Maheen Rao: It looks like it's only just these users, the first of which I blocked. Declined, please re-report if the spamming recommences. The second half of your request makes zero sense. Copy and paste error? MER-C13:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind if the Bollywood spammers report each other... in fact it makes my job easier. Thanks for letting me know about this. MER-C02:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@MER-C: Now, this is getting very interesting if some of the competitors want to blacklist any website i.e their competitors website. All they need to do is to spam links 5-6 here and bang. Moderators will blacklist them. Very Funny !!
Domain webmaster is only advertising one link which might be his/her own domain. Not adding sources which are credible as a reliable source, much less that it should be blocked as spam as you seem to be proposing. Please ping me. Maheen Rao
I have seen an anon and two new accounts try to add it over the past few days. Since it's a WordPress site, the URL may change and perhaps *.fifaworldcup2014livescores.* should be added instead. I don't watch this page so if you need me, please ping me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it is very prejudicial of you to assume just because a site uses wordpress that it has no credibility as a reliable source, much less that it should be blocked as spam as you seem to be proposing. On the rough overview of this site, it looks like a topical news aggregation site. It would be devastating to wikipedia for us to block all these kinds of sites based on such superficial prejudice. Trackinfo (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I, as an employee of this new SEO company, am asking for borntosell.com to be removed from the blacklist because Born to Sell has its own Wikipedia page. A link to the homepage would be helpful to users navigating Wikipedia. Also, references to items posted on the site would be useful as well as this is common in other company pages ( for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameritrade#cite_ref-26 ).
The past abuse to Wikipedia that happened in 2010 will never happen again as that company is no longer connected with borntosell.com.
Because anyone can write an article at examiner.com if they style themselves an "expert" or "passionate" about a subject. There is little or no editorial review. It is not a reliable source, it is a glorified wiki without the checks and balances of Wikipedia.—D'Ranged 1VTalk02:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a very unreliable source and quite happy to host attack pages with obviously no fact checking. Something I know from personal experience. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
These are not the reasons it was blacklisted. It was blacklisted because it was spammed (albeit on a small scale), and because the site is giving an incentive to spam (basically, the writer of an article is receiving monetary compensation for people visiting the article, and links have been added to Wikipedia for that reason). Most of the information is generally available elsewhere (the easy way to write an article: scrape the info from the internet, re-publish it on Examiner.com, make sure there are incoming links, earn money ..). For the cases where the article on examiner.com is really necessary, we have a whitelist for specific links: Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk BeetstraTC05:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The sourcing I have sought and found on examiner.com has been very reliable. This policy is applying a wholesale nuclear bomb to a potentially valuable source where a flyswatter might be more appropriate. Trackinfo (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Trackinfo, carrying reliable info does not make a website a reliable source - a lot of information on Wikipedia is actually reliable, still, wikis, including Wikipedia, are not a reliable source (Wikipedia:General_disclaimer: "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" <- that disqualifies Wikipedia, and practically any less maintained wiki, as a reliable source). Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. And as I said earlier, a lot of the information is 'scraped' (copied/rewritten from elsewhere), and often those sites are reliable sources. Just to ask a question: how do you know that the info on a page on examiner.com is reliable?
But as I said, the reliability is not the core issue (though it does not help) - the problem is the spamming issue with this site. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Reliability should be an issue. There is a complete lack of editorial oversight and the site certainly lacks a reputation for reliability. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am editing some boarding school pages, and this site is very useful for comparisons of different metrics between different schools. (They even source their data). It seems the domain was blocked in June 2010 for spam from 96.56.136.42. However, that IP has not been active since then and I'd like to use the website as a reference now. Specifically the boarding school subdomain, but I see no reason why the entire site can't be unblocked, as it looks like it could be useful for a number of different categories. R0uge (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The IP could not spam anymore, so that likely stopped their contributions. However, that is three years ago, and I am considering this (it can always be re-added if the abuse did not stop ..). Are the subdomains maintained by the site owner itself, or by different groups of people (I mean, maybe boarding-schools subdomain is fine, but one other may not be - in which case I would suggest selective whitelisting to see whether spamming is still an issue but also to keep the situation manageable). How is the data maintained anyway? --Dirk BeetstraTC04:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't know anything about how they work other than what's on the web, but it looks like their research team is monolithic rather than disparate contributors. No idea how the data is maintained, but it looks current - the page for Phillips Academy Andover (first link I clicked) says it was updated yesterday. (I can't link to these pages because they're on the blacklist, ironically enough. Might want to disable the blacklist for this page only.) R0uge (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
If you leave off the http:// you can save here - one can than always paste the link to have a look if needed - sometimes there is a reason not to follow the link so indeed, any form of linking is disabled.
Reposting the same question multiple times is not going to hurry things up.
You also haven't responded to Dirk Beetstra's suggestion to show us the links that interest you, without the http prefix.
Finally, you haven't explained why you can't request whitelisting of one or two specific pages for the purpose of referencing in the article. I would oppose de-listing the root domain findthebest.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The particular page I am looking to reference is boarding-schools.findthebest.com (just that one link), specifically to use the list as sorted by Acceptance rate to show that Phillips Academy Andover is 'selective' as compared to its peers. I personally would only need that one page whitelisted, but it seems that the root domain contains much more useful information that could be useful for other editors to reference across wikipedia, and with the abuse from this domain occurring and ceasing so long ago, it seems that now would be a good time to open it up. R0uge (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to adding that subdomain to the whitelist. Even better would be to just whitelist the 'widget' version of that page, which is an actual URL path rather than a domain: boarding-schools.findthebest.com/w/kibHiSfKuAR ~Amatulić (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That wouldn't work for my purposes because the 'widget' version doesn't show acceptance rates. R0uge (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd be amazed if we can't find a better source. Side issue not related to the blacklist is that I'm not convinced you can use a sorted list in that way. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I was able to find a different source, so my issue is closed. However I still don't see a reason for the top-level domain to continue to be on the blacklist. R0uge (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It was blacklisted because it was continuously spammed (a.o. by the CEO of the company) despite repeated requests to stop. If it is shown that editors do not repsond to such requests (rather recently - only 2 years, we have companies active for 6-10 years active spamming, sometimes despite blacklisting of domains), why do you think that removal now would not re-start the behaviour. And you show that the pages are not of extensive use to Wikipedia, alternatives exist. --Dirk BeetstraTC05:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Just that the site seems to have gone through some major overhauls since the spamming incidents 4 years ago. I'm surprised that there have been companies that go for 6-10 years as you say, but that's fine - I wasn't aware of the heuristics used on the blacklist. You can mark this resolved, as I'm done persuing it. R0uge (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
battletag.freeforums.org is the definitive source for the community that is still using the Ubisoft battletag system. It should be linked from the BattleTag wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscrewdson (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Smashinginterviews was blocked Dec. 2010. No reason is given in the log, but I find this discussion from 2012.
Given that there's a lot of content on this site that can be used to improve BLPs and that any spamming happened four years ago, can we give them a second chance?
Their "About" page (sorry, I'm not allowed to link to it) outlines the usefulness of their material. It seems to be an open and accountable site: the publishers are named there and their e-addresses given. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I looked a bit in the history, this has a history of persistent spamming by founders and people involved with the site as late as May 2013, while this started back in 2010 or earlier. I am uncomfortable with removing this one so shortly after that. I would suggest to ask for whitelisting of specific links that are needed: Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk BeetstraTC13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
We can see from the log the website ledstop was blocked from the wikipedia in June 2013, we have recently started working with this company to improve their search results and we were surprised to see the website had been blocked as we can see no reason why the company was blocked in the first place. The company has not worked with an SEO agency before and their internal knowledge of wikipedia and search engines is limited to say the least. The website publishes plenty of informative and original material on led lighting in the UK which would be of value to the wikipedia.
I understand that this site is on the blacklist. I edited the Adam Jones page to include a link to his audio interview on A Voice for Men. Of course it was rejected. Is there a way to link this without causing any issues with the blacklist?Dianathedefender (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to ask you for add this pages to wikipedia whitelist. These link was related to people who are listed on wikipedia, and were added with good intentions. There are more informations about their companies and about their work. People who are searching for this people could easily find them and easily find their comapnies. I have already promised that I will not spam. I just wont to be punished for another people who added those links. I would be very grateful for this act.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahBxxx (talk • contribs)
Asking not to be punished because other people added the link seems quite disingenuous considering you yourself ignored warnings to stop spamming the link. Deli nk (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Not only that, but you were unblocked on the basis that you would not be adding any more links to these websites. Rejected for the reasons that were pointed out to you on User talk:HannahBxxx. MER-C06:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
These were added to the list in July 2010 with another link, but not logged; edits that led to the blacklisting are Special:Contributions/Philiporchard. As Exeter and Cardiff are UK cities these are likely to cause false positives and should probably be modified the same way as the guy.com entry was[26]. The \bstay[\w-]*\.co\.uk\b was added after it was claimed "collateral damage is unlikely"[27], unsurprisingly wrong (there's at least one other site containing "stay", which was an official site when added but now a dead link). Peter James (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
There may indeed be false positives, but the question is how many, and how many of those will merit linking on Wikipedia. '[A]t least one other site containing "stay"' - that is exactly what we have a whitelist for. There is indeed a site ending in 'exeter.co.uk' which may merit linking, which has just been deferred to the whitelist as well. Also here: Defer to Whitelist for those sites, we are not here for a game of whack-a-mole on a long list of spammy sites while there may be one or two who merit linking. --Dirk BeetstraTC19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Just as a note, if specific ones arise, the rule can also be adapted to exclude specific ones - though whitelisting the ones that one does need is more transparent. --Dirk BeetstraTC19:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Listed in December 2010, this seems like a good reference site for corporate relationships searches. Seems overdue to be taken off the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingsranch (talk • contribs)
A good reference site? It is a wiki, and it was likely spammed. I would suggest that for specific links that can be shown to be suitable, whitelisting can be requested: Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this site. --Dirk BeetstraTC18:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
COIBot / LiWa3
I am busy slowly restarting COIBot and LiWa3 again - both will operate from fresh tables (LiWa3 started yesterday, 29/12/2013; COIBot started today, 30/12/2013). As I am revamping some of the tables, and they need to be regenerated (e.g. the user auto-whitelist-tables need to be filled, blacklist-data for all the monitored wikis), expect data to be off, and some functionality may not be operational yet. LiWa3 starts from an empty table, which also means that autodetection based on statistics will be skewed. I am unfortunately not able to resurrect the old data, that will need to be done by hand. Hopefully things will be normal again in a couple of days. --Dirk BeetstraTC17:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Can the blacklist handle article talk page spamming?
When a blacklisted link to the personal website of some ip-shifthing author's original research is repeatedly and disruptively added on various article talk pages, will a bot automatically undo new talk page edits containing that link and warn the user? - DVdm (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
You have two separate questions implied:
Will the blacklist also affect talk pages? Yes, the blacklist prevents blacklisted links from being added to articles as well as talk pages. The blacklist doesn't undo edits. It blocks edits from happening.
Is there a bot that can undo spam edits? Yes, see User:XLinkBot. It has its own separate revert list and rules. It's useful for cases where a hard blacklisting of a site (like blogspot.com for example) isn't completely justified although most attempts to link to that site will be spam.
