Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-01
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Proposed additions
|
This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted |
indymedia.org
Not sure about this, but I think this should have a second look. COIBot refuses to save, since we are now up to 1600 records (it takes the bot down).
Previous discussion: User:SpamReportBot/cw/indymedia.org
indymedia.org
Some COIBot data:
- 1604 records; Top 10 editors who have added indymedia.org: ClueBot (94), 146.103.254.11 (40), NotificaBot (31), <reg user?> (23), AVBOT (23), <prob reg user> (18), <reg user> (17), <.. prob reg user> (17), 71.146.17.200 (15), <prob reg user> (13)
- Top 10 wikis where indymedia.org has been added: en.wikipedia (727), es.wikipedia (216), de.wikipedia (181), pt.wikipedia (119), it.wikipedia (118), fr.wikipedia (73), ru.wikipedia (32), tr.wikipedia (32), pl.wikipedia (16), nl.wikipedia (10)
For the 2 IPs:
User:146.103.254.11(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:71.146.17.200(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
- 57 records; Domains added by 146.103.254.11: indymedia.org (40), wikio.com (6), youtube.com (3), nheylen.wordpress.com (2), imec.be (1), wikio.es (1), f1belgium.com (1), wiran.gr (1), magma-da.com (1), vakantiefietser.be (1)
- Wikis where user:146.103.254.11 added links: en.wikipedia (14), it.wikipedia (8), es.wikipedia (4), nl.wikipedia (3), da.wikipedia (2), sv.wikipedia (1), no.wikipedia (1), nn.wikipedia (1), de.wikipedia (1), commons.commons (1).
- This IP had in the beginning a strong focus for Silvio Berlusconi, where the link got removed and readded a couple of times accross multiple wikis.
- Top 10 domains added by 71.146.17.200: indybay.org (6), santacruz.indymedia.org (6), archives.econ.utah.edu (3), geocities.com (2), sf.indymedia.org (2), portland.indymedia.org (2), friheten.no (1), iacboston.org (1), aljazeerah.info (1), houston.indymedia.org (1)
- Wikis where user:71.146.17.200 added links: en.wikipedia (1)
From the FAQ ():
- Distilled from our mission statement: Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.
- If you are convinced your own story is of international relevance, then please publish your story to the Indymedia newswire by clicking on the "publish" link on the www.indymedia.org page and following the easy instructions. If you send your story to the imc-editorial list or any other e-mail list people on those lists will most likely ask you to post the story yourself.
- Should you believe news you read on CNN.com? All reporters have their own biases; governments and massive for-profit corporations that own media entities have their own biases as well, and often impose their views on their reporters (or their reporters self-censor to conform their own biases to those of their employer). You should look at all reports you read on the Indymedia site with a critical eye, just as you should look at all media before you in a discerning manner.
- No corporation owns Indymedia, no government manages the organization, no single donor finances the project. Indymedia is not the mouthpiece of any political party or organization. People involved with Indymedia have a wide variety of political and personal viewpoints. Anyone may participate in Indymedia organizing and anyone may post to the Indymedia newswires....
- Indymedia currently doesn't have the money to pay anyone, even for the hundreds of hours of work they've done for the network.
From the list of editors who added this, above, most are bots, and the one IP who is adding this quite a lot (of the other domains of that user some are also quistionable .. wordpress, wikio). The deleted names have one really regular user, and one who probably is regular, the others I give a question mark, but they still may be good editors.
I think that there may be use for the site, but it certainly gets spammed cross-wiki. Could a second eye (should I say third and fourth eye, or second set of eyes?) have a look at this? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 22:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I should add, the first IP has not been adding links since 26/11/2008. I just noted some recent additions today. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 22:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- The linksearch on enwiki reveals that there are many links to the site. Soxred93 02:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Since this site is citizen journalism in essence, I'm not sure it is always an appropriately reliable source, however I think it does have legitimate uses. I would be extremely hesitata to blacklist this domain without clear proof that links to this domain are being pushed on multiple wikis over the long term. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Should ban the users, not the domain. It is frequently used as an external link in articles, and sometimes even as a primary source. Since it is clearly neither commercial nor vandalic/malware, problems with spam should be dealt at the user level, not the domain level. Thanks!--69.114.60.147 00:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Since this site is citizen journalism in essence, I'm not sure it is always an appropriately reliable source, however I think it does have legitimate uses. I would be extremely hesitata to blacklist this domain without clear proof that links to this domain are being pushed on multiple wikis over the long term. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- The linksearch on enwiki reveals that there are many links to the site. Soxred93 02:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Although I think that this is not a reliable source (as most information is self published, not peer reviewed and not by payed, established editors on the site, which makes the info on the site similar to most wikis etc.), I do see that it is used by regulars. I'll close this for now as
Declined, keeping in mind that it has been abused, and may still be abused, but it seems that the abuse is not big enough for blacklisting (at the moment). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
rickrolld.me
rickrolld.me
dmluis.rickrolld.me
User:189.194.198.188(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:203.129.147.223(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
Please, blacklist urgently this site. Once time is opened you can't close it. In addition, my antivirus provided me serious alerts that "malicious content has been blocked". Thanks in advance. Dferg (T-ES) 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see no malware here, just some annoying javascript, and an even-more-annoying internet meme. Clearly useless to our projects, so that might be a reason to blacklist it. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Added by Beetstra. Dferg (T-ES) 22:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. It has no use for our projects, I was just noting it's not a risk. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
fizy.org
fizy.org
Dear all, crosswiki spam from
User:88.246.231.210(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
I already added \bfizy\.org\b to the blacklist and gblocked the IP for 15 minutes. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Report should be coming in a few minutes. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I only see 2 link additions here. It is spamming, but I'm not sure we need to leave this blacklisted permanently. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was added on wikt:de:fizy, wikt:en:fizy, wikt:fr:fizy, wikt:tr:fizy, wikt:nl:fizy, wikt:es:fizy and probably others, ts is not up to date, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and on enWP - blatant spamming. JzG 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was added on wikt:de:fizy, wikt:en:fizy, wikt:fr:fizy, wikt:tr:fizy, wikt:nl:fizy, wikt:es:fizy and probably others, ts is not up to date, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Robertyaris (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser) - de:Fizy, ru:Fizy, es:fizy, fi:Fizy, fr:Fizy, it:Fizy, nl:fizy, no:fizy, pl:fizy, pt:fizy, ro:fizy
I would recommend not to remove it from the blacklist.
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the various tools have caught up by now & there is clear abuse in this case. Thanks a ton, birdy. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
zurl.ws
zurl.ws
Redirect site. Used on en.wp to redirect to locally blacklisted site ([1]) but as a redirect site I understand this one should be blacklisted globally. -- SiobhanHansa 17:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
maselectromedicina.com and surmedical.com adsense related
maselectromedicina.com
surmedical.com
Adsense pub-4138084252125247
- more es:190.64.138.52
es:190.64.47.162
es:85.55.147.50
--Hu12 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC) - Continuing on En. --Hu12 22:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Attempt to remove listing on this page at meta and at en --Enric Naval 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- On a short perusal, links are not adding value to articles:
- en:ISO 13485 [2] link only has a short summary of the standard
- en:Mechanical ventilation [3] valuable only on surface, it's some of those technologies that one day might or might not be useful
- en:Dialysis [4] promotion of a local clinic, unsourced assertions
- en:Optical microscope [5] how to choose a microscope (hum, clearly encyclopedic material)
- (same diff as above) terminology list, appears to be a copyvio from http://labdepotonline.com/glossary.asp and maybe of http://202.194.4.88:8080/wulihx/English/电镜常用英文词汇500个（美语版）.pdf. In any case, nothing unique that we can't go without
- the link ventilacionmecanica.maselectromedicina.com was being spammed five months ago over all mechanic ventilation related articles. Page has 9 google ads + 5 links promoting companies. And now it's being re-added, this time with filler articles... hum....
- Curious note: The two domains have identical content on some pages, and an IP has tried to replace one domain with the other domain[6].
- It has also been spammed at es wiki, on 7 different articles[7], matching some of those being spammed now at enwiki --Enric Naval 23:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- more es:190.64.138.52
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks,--Hu12 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
farecompare.com
farecompare.com
Spotted by Herby on enWP with several hundreds of links, some masquerading as sources, and a check reveals a similar pattern of abuse on multiple other wikis (e.g. fr and de). It's a price comparison site, and the links are definitely promotional not informational. Added, listing here for logging purposes. JzG 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
URL shorteners
- \bte\.tl\b
- \bw3tag\.com\b
— Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 07:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Belgian municapility spam
borgloon.com
bredene.com
bruggebusiness.com
dehaanonline.com
dilsen-stokkem.com
heusden-zolder.com
izegem.com
kruibeke.com
lanaken.com
maaseik.com
maasmechelen.com
mortsel.com
poperinge.com
puurs.com
riemst.com
rotselaar.com
temse.com
tielt-winge.com
veurne.com
vlaams-brabant.com
flandersonline.com
wenduine.com
wervik.com
wetteren.com
zonhoven.com
efuengirola.com
benalmadenacosta.com
sotograndecosta.com
leopoldsburg.com
spammed from multiple IPs in the ranges 80.201.168.0/22, 81.240.48.0/20, 80.200.208.0/20, 80.200.0.0/20 and 217.136.188.0/22, e.g.
User:80.200.222.216(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
The spam seems to be mostly targeted at the Dutch and English Wikipedia, but others were spammed as well. 
Added --Erwin(85) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
al-wlaah.com
al-wlaah.com
On Meta (blacklisted locally) and Commons at least. Waiting on a report. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added. --Erwin(85) 12:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
fiu-vrowiki spambot domains
- spambot stuff from fiu-vrowiki
sematild.qsh.eu
lofaako.strefa.pl
golxando.0lx.net
— Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
alestewines.com
alestewines.com
Mirror site of alestevinos.com trying to circunvent/elude the blockage of his site. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/alestevinos.com Dferg (T-ES) 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ercsaba74's links
User:Ercsaba74
ramkol.eu
sznt.eu
{{linksummary|cchr.ro}}{{linksummary|sznt.ro}}
remeteahr.ro
gyergyoremete.ro
{{linksummary|1000ev.hu}}
{{linksummary|mek.oszk.hu}}
{{linksummary|met.hu}}
{{linksummary|cinemarx.ro}}
Most of these can probably be blacklisted. Waiting on reports... — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Striked out some that appear to be used legitimately. Others seem to be being pushed by Ercsaba74 & are thus Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to know why had been removed those links (sznt.eu and ramkol.eu)? This two sites represents now in the best way the Szeklerland and has a lot of usefull informations. More good and usefull informations like some other websites which are now on wiki pages. (ex. gobeportal.com). I think on wiki projects is important to have at "External links" section websites which has really usefull and has non-mistaked informations. Please review your decision to removing the links. I would like to mention also: I start work in wikiproject since 2006. I think my works are well apreciated until now in this nearly 3 years, because my opinion was to have correct datas on wiki. With those links the ideea was same. To have connection with good informations. Also I would like to put those links on every Szekler settlenemt's wikipage. Ercsaba74 21:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Now I realise, the gyergyoremete.ro and remeteahr.ro are also on blacklist. Same comment like before. The the gyergyoremete.ro is the official site of the settlement in Hungarian and the remeteahr.ro is the official site in Romanian (and the remetea.eu in French, gyergyoremete.eu in English).
The issue was that you were adding many links to these domains across many of our wikis in a way that didn't seem to improve the quality of our content. Official sites should be removed; the others should be re-evaluated by a third party and removed if they're genuinely useful to our projects. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you must check the websites. Example: the English version of sznt.eu - have a lot of official and historically incontestable facts about Szeklerland - the example what I mentioned last time has only usefull legends - no facts about this region. If you think thats improve the quality of wikipedia, so this is a sad thing. The ramkol.eu - maybe is not have many visitors, because the site is new, but with up to date data by example: the contact datas of mayor's offices, to tourist offices, to churches, to companies, to visitable places are all up to date. I think is an important thing, and improve the wikipedia. The gyergyoremete.ro and remeteahr.ro links are on Hungarian and Romanian wiki. I think you may contact some administrator who speaks these language, to see the informations from sites improve or not the quality of wiki. Are a lot of arguments, but I consider if you want will revise, if you not want, I can have my arguments, you not will revise your decision about links. I told my opinion, and I am sad, because I lost my time to write my arguments, in this time I lost the chance to write or correct an article. Ercsaba74 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the assumption I've made a mistake here, these are
Removed — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
zshare.net
zshare.net
This is a file sharing site - I don't see why we need to link to that. No data on the reports because there's too much data. Perhaps Beetstra could force the bot to create it for us? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Using the off-wiki search in COIBot, I don't see any cross-wiki abuse. Some editors indeed add quite some of this link, but they all seem to be focussing on one wiki. It is mainly added to en, and to some other wikis. Usefullness is indeed another question. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see no point in linking to these sites, but it's quite a big step to start blacklisting them. I'm not sure if we should take that step. Next time we might blacklist similar URLs just because by adding this one we created a precedent. --Erwin(85) 12:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Not done then. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see no point in linking to these sites, but it's quite a big step to start blacklisting them. I'm not sure if we should take that step. Next time we might blacklist similar URLs just because by adding this one we created a precedent. --Erwin(85) 12:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
mysafelink.com
- The advertised purpose of this site is to strip referrer information, however it does that by changing the posted URL to a mysafelink.com url in the same fashion that tinyurl.com and other link shortening sites do. (plus it makes you look at a page full of adverts on your way to the target site)..
mysafelink.com
--Versageek 05:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
klimenro.0fees.net
User:193.151.91.7(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
klimenro.0fees.net
Started to spam crosswiki [8], [9], blocked the IP globally for 15 minutes and already added the link to the bl. Maybe it needs to be removed again.
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pure spam - good addition. 0fees.net is a free hosting domain - I suspect many of the domains will be spammy, so monitoring that. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Russian bride spam
User:Nata12345
liliya.w-ru.com
the.best.fussian.brides-2.w-ru.com
liliya-russianbrides.w-ru.com
russianbrides2.ru
russianbrides.ucoz.ru
Already Added by spacebirdy:
\bliliya\.w-ru\.com\b \bthe\.best\.russian\.brides-2\.w-ru\.com\b \bliliya-russianbrides\.w-ru\.com\b \brussianbrides2\.ru\b \brussianbrides\.ucoz\.ru\b
Probably worth checking for related domains, and whether we want to blacklist the whole w-ru.com domain. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike! Adding one other link to the list. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
w-ru.com
- OK, the whole w-ru.com domain looks ok to blacklist - the whole thing is russian brides spam. However ucoz.ru not - subdomains are not all the same, and a very wide range of users are adding it.
ucoz.ru
Regex for a boatload of related domains, all on the russian bride spam theme:
\bowndating(?:site)?\.(?:com|net)\b \bru-(?:wom[ae]n|wife|wives)(?:-dating)?\.(?:info|com|net|org)\b \b(?:wife-|real-|your-)?russian-(?:ladies|brides|wom[ae]n)(?:-online)?\.(?:com|ru|eu)\b \btop-1000-russian-brides\.(?:com|net)\b \brussian(?:ladies|brides)1\.com\b \bon-line-datingsite\.(?:com|net)\b \beroticvisits?\.com\b \b(?:pretty-)?russian-(?:women|bride|single)-dating\.(?:com|net)\b \b(?:okfree|go4)dating\.(?:org|net)\b \b(?:online)?dating-(?:site|search|russian)\.(?:net|info)\b \b(?:vipgirlie|brides(?:finder|inrussia)|com-ru-women|visa2russia|matchingsite|my-wife|uadating|all-russian-women|dating1000)\.net\b \b(?:russ-love|webrussianbrides|myfreecupid|princessbridesite|eliterussianbrides|asterot|mygourds|emailrussiangirls|russianladiesemail|fianceefromrussia)\.com\b \blove-r\.info\b \bwomenrussia\.eu\b \brussian-lady\.org\b
— Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some of those regexps are partially redundant. Apart from that I suggest to shorten that bunch of regexps by using more general regexps, I suggest
\bw-ru\.com\b (?:russian|\bru)-?(?:bride|girls|ladies|lady|single|wife|wives|wom[ae]n) (?:online|ua|own|okfree|go4)dating(\b|\d|site) \b(?:vipgirlie|brides(?:finder|inrussia)|visa2russia|matchingsite|my-wife)\.net\b \b(?:russ-love|myfreecupid|princessbridesite|asterot|mygourds|fianceefromrussia)\.com\b \bwomenrussia\.eu\b \beroticvisits?\.com\b
- This will block many more sites than your proposal, but afaics it is a bit easier to maintain. Furthermore only links will be blocked which will probably be of no use. -- seth 00:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- For there are no objections to that, I'll exchange those sbl entries in the next hours/days. -- seth 01:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- There were some mistakes in my suggestion. But I fixed that and will exchange the entries now, see [10].
Done -- seth 21:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
kelebeknakliyat.com
kelebeknakliyat.com
Involved with bad page creations on Meta, and has some additions elsewhere. Worth looking into. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
ihateliz.com
ihateliz.com
Claims to reward anyone that generates links with porn.[11] 98.235.103.118 04:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed removals
|
|
This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted. |
Filmfocus.nl
filmfocus.nl
I just created a film article and I used information included on a filmfocus page and found it to be blocked. (A good thing the browser saved my work). I see no inherent issues with the reliability of the site, so it's highly valuable to article on Dutch films. I would therefore ask for the domain to be delisted. If you need any more information or if you have comments, I can be reached on the talk page of my English Wikipedia account (where I am most active) - Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
\.filmfocus\.nl # Walter # requested by w:nl:user:Siebrand - spamlinking in NL.wp
- Provided there's no cross-wiki abuse shown in the report (needs to be re-generated once the database is repaired; see discussion below), this can be removed as soon as it's added to nlwiki's local blacklist, I think. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll add it to nlwiki's blacklist if there's no cross-wiki abuse. --Erwin(85) 18:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did that ever get done? If so, we can remove it here. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, Removed. I don't see any additions here. nlwiki can add it whenever - I don't think there's much risk in leaving it unblocked on nlwiki for a week or something. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK,
- Did that ever get done? If so, we can remove it here. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll add it to nlwiki's blacklist if there's no cross-wiki abuse. --Erwin(85) 18:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
bitgle.com
bitgle.com
Dear all, the site Bitgle.com is a serious web search engine, used by hundreds of people every day, and I'm not a spammer. I apologize if my behaviour of divulgate the good job of the guys from Bitgle was unpleasant here, as a new user I didn't realize that could be against your point of view. I'd like to ask you to delist the domain please. Best regards, --151.47.39.6 12:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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 value in support of our projects. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your domain may well be removed.
- Until such time, this request is
Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
realgems.org
realgems.org
I just realized (21st Dec 2008) that someone has blocked my URL (minerals and gems field) on at least Wiki.de and Wiki.en! My private, non-commercial and educational (used also by U.S. scholars and profs at U.S. universities) website realgems.org (http & www I have to leave out because of the Wiki spam filter...) has also the right being accessable on Wiki as other informational websites like e.g. www.mindat.org! There can be nothing against that! So I ask Wikipedia to re-install all my links on all Wiki sites where they were blocked or deleted. I see that at least a 16 year old pupil in Germany is responsable for this wrong action: "Liebenau.Jens". It took me two years of hard work to create my website about minerals and gems, and it is not the easiest work to add links on several Wiki pages, e.g. China, Russia, Japan etc etc.... My website is internationally accepted and respected, and a help for interested Wiki visitors in the field of minerals and gemstones. Just have a look on my website and you will see that Wiki didn't do a great job here.
Best, and happy Xmas, Redberyl
- Was added after bot report. No time to review this currently. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Declined. We typically do not remove websites from the blacklist at the request of the site owner, especially where the site has been liberally spammed across multiple projects. In this case the links woul appear to benefit the site more than the various Wikipedias. JzG 10:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike.lifeguard wrote on 21 Dec: "Two IPs from the same ISP complaining about the addition of a single domain on my talk page within minutes of one another? Give me a break. Don't waste my time, just leave comments on Talk:Spam blacklist. This sort of silliness doesn't help you. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)"
I don't know when and if I get a new IP. ISP I don't know. If you mean "stardust" who wrote on Mike.lifeguard's user-talk page: "Realgems.org is a great website for gems and mineral collectors. You find a great selection of gem and mineral photos for each species barely found somewhere else. This website is a help and orientation for all collectors or interested people to see photos especially from rare species; therefore it is not understandable why Wikipedia stopped linking to this totally non-commercial portal!!???"
I learned afterwards that "stardust" is a very reliable and well-known mineral dealer who informed me later that it was him who placed that message on your page, of course after I have asked nearly 80 collectors and dealers for their help. Nothing more.
Best, and happy Xmas, Redberyl
- So, now the excuse is canvassing... Still Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Part 2
Mike.lifeguard (s.a.) put and end to the RealGems matter writing this:
"Please be aware that the domain owner has placed a notice on the web page, suggesting that users come here to complain. I would suggest that info-en-l-at-wikimedia.org would be a better venue if the domain owner has an issue with the decision made here. They would do well to note that the domain will be removed when a long-term, trusted editor requires the use of the domain to improve a content page on one of our projects. Having random people show up and whine isn't going to have much effect, save wasting the time and energy of all involved. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)"
"...the domain owner has placed a notice on the web page, suggesting that users come here to complain..." - I have NOT asked my international visitors to complain. I have just asked them to place their opinion on this page! So Mike.lifeguard added a wrong fact here.
"I would suggest that info-en-l-at-wikimedia.org would be a better venue..." - This is not helpful to solve this problem. Mike.lifeguard does not have a simple @ on his keyboard?
"...if the domain owner has an issue..." It is not "an issue" but a major impact on my work which is dedicated to inform other people about gems and minerals.
"Having random people show up and whine..." Such vocabulary is not helpful too, especially because I have not used similar expressions. Re "random people": Until now at least 100 collectors, dealers and professors (random?) are informed about your unjust behaviour - especially blocking all comments from "trusted, high-volume" (Wiki slogan) persons and institutions so that nobody can write his democratic opinion here.
Best, and happy Xmas, Redberyl
23rd December
Now I know that I have added too many links to my own website. I hear from the owner of Mindat (the world's first mineral database) that all the Wiki links to Mindat were added by others, not the owner. Therefore I will delete the unusual message on my website intro page, and ask Wiki if the admins give me the chance to delete most of my links by myself. Many thanks to all who understood my problem.
Best, and happy Xmas, Redberyl
Deletion of all my links: Dear Dr. VSmith, Wiki admin,
on Dec 20th Wiki deleted all links going to my website realgems.org because of "spamming". Meanwhile I know that I did something wrong when I added a lot of links to my own website. I will not do that again of course.
But Wiki admins have also deleted all links which were added by the international public. Now my website realgems.org is no more accessable on Wikipedia. So nobody can find all the photos and infos on my non-profit and educational website, after having read a Wiki page. Nothing happened with all the links you once added, e.g. to Mindat, Webmineral and Mineral Galleries. Why? Wiki accused me having spammed their mineral and gems pages with my own links but I don't see a difference between your links to some mineral sites and the links going to my site.
Would you be so kind and explain me why all your additions are no spam but my visitors' links are spam?
Oh, I just see that I cannot write my complete URL because this URL is blocked! So I have to write "realgems.org" instead of the complete address. It's a shame.
Kind regards, Redberyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Quite simple - I have no connection to those mineral websites. I simply use them to find technical mineral info and document my editing of mineral articles. I viewed your website as non-commercial and felt it had some quality images, but the data was available elsewhere. Your problem was in trying to promote your own work, that is a distinct no-no on Wikipedia for a very good reason. Too bad that the blacklisting was the result, but tough cookies. Am I going to work to change that? I see no reason to now. And that Dr. bit above is not appropriate as I'm not one, had to "drop out" and feed the kids. Vsmith (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
And if you really want to help, why not upload some of those great images to Wikipedia and add content to gem and mineral article stubs - join in the fun as a real Wiki-volunteer. Vsmith (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
14:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear VSmith, thanks for your quick reply - in contrary to the rest of Wiki admins. My international visitors also have no connection to my website but their additions (links) were deleted. Do you know exactly that all these people don't use my infos also, for editing mineral articles? Surely not. Thanks for having a look on my site. You are right: My project is mainly aimed on photos. To create such a collection seem to be helpful not only for collectors but also for U.S. scholars, according to my web usage statistics. Mineral data is also available elsewhere, not only on your favorite sites. Please tell me another website where you can see and compare more varieties of colors of gems and their minerals.
I really did not intend to promote my own work. The more visitors, the more I have to pay for traffic volume... I just thought that my efforts to compile all this stuff would be worth being linked on Wikipedia to help people finding a lot of gems varieties. That is (at least in my opinion) exactly the aim of Wikipedia: being a helpful resource for informations. I would have created articles but what would Wiki admins have said if I would have flooded Wikipedia with all these photos?
Your final sentence I don't understand, re "feeding kids". I hope you meant something positive, according to the Wiki ethics.
If I would start helping Wikipedia by editing etc., would Wikipedia re-install my links?
Kind regards, and happy 2009, Redberyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say if you become a serious Wiki-contributor by adding valid content over time I would consider working to de-blacklist your site - not sure what that would involve though. Feed the kids simply meant I had a family to provide for and had to get a job to pay the bills instead of finishing a phd program. Vsmith (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
VSmith, Now I understand what you meant re "kids". My English isn't the best, it's old school English from the late 60ies. My dad had a slightly similar prob after the war, re finishing high school. He always suffered from that f... time.
Yes, I would like becoming a contributor but at first Wiki has to re-install all links and "whitelist" my URL. Even you seem to think that my site is not the worst. A lot of people worldwide would praise you, having saved their links / input.
Best, Redberyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No - first Wiki has to re-install all links and "whitelist" my URL, it doesn't work that way. If you want to contribute, then do so with no conditions. Build a reputation as a valid Wikipedian - then we'll discuss weblinks. Vsmith (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say no because you (as an admin) have probably added more links to certain websites than any other of my international visitors. Regarding the Wiki spam politics you would have been regarded as a real spammer.
Let's have a look on "Red Beryl", "Painite", "Demantoid" or e.g. "Gahnite". What was your impacting input except from adding links? My visitors did exactly the same as you did but were put into the Wiki prison, together with me.
I don't need Wikipedia but Wikipedia should be happy about additional links to that rare (as you said) photo collection on my website. Therefore I repeat that Wikipedia (which is responsible for all deletions) has to "whitelist" my URL before I will become a true supporter and editor (mainly in de.wikipedia of course).
If that does not happen, and I will not be officially informed (email) about a positive solution, Wikipedia (at least some of its admins) is acting against its own dedication. I will not show this entry on my website until I get a positive response from you or another responsable admin.
When you sit back and relax, dear Vsmith, you will see that all this discussion is unnecessary. I would assist Wikipedia as a true supporter, you should release my URL from your "prison".
Happy New Year to you, Redberyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware that the domain owner has placed a notice on the web page, suggesting that users come here to complain. I would suggest that info-en-l
wikimedia
org would be a better venue if the domain owner has an issue with the decision made here. They would do well to note that the domain will be removed when a long-term, trusted editor requires the use of the domain to improve a content page on one of our projects. Having random people show up and whine isn't going to have much effect, save wasting the time and energy of all involved. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
apelosurgentes.com.br
I require the removal of this site from blacklist. This is an important site and not a SPAM site. It is a very known and contains messages from Our Lady. Wiki is becoming useless because of these nerd behaviours like blacklisting important sites and refusing to remove from blacklist even if people argue and explain and show that the site really does not need to be in a BLACK LIST. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.104.207.232 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2008
- I'll investigate this a bit later, however I'll note for now that when you say you "require" us to remove your domain and you call us nerds, you certainly aren't starting this blacklisting review on a very promising note. I don't think Saint Mary believed in calling people names but you may want to check that out for yourself.
- Regards, --A. B. (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
No investigation necessery, A.B., the data is all there:
apelosurgentes.com.br
User:189.104.207.232(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:189.104.242.125(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:195.214.255.253(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:189.12.49.65(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
I see that there are 2 IPs which are close to the one who added this post. This link was spammed cross-wiki (Top 10 wikis where apelosurgentes.com.br has been added: en.wikipedia (4), it.wikipedia (2), de.wikipedia (2), es.wikipedia (2), nl.wikipedia (2), ja.wikipedia (1), hu.wikipedia (1), gl.wikipedia (1), sq.wikipedia (1), fr.wikipedia (1)) by these IPs mainly (Editors who have added apelosurgentes.com.br: 189.104.242.125 (15), 195.214.255.253 (2), EJF (huggle) (1), River matthew (1), 189.12.49.65 (1)) (I believe that the the two named accounts perform vandalism reverts here, which re-insert the links, they were not genuine edits). In other words: Declined. If you need the link to be de-blacklisted, seek contact with regular editors on these wikis, and see if they think the link is of interest to their wiki. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- The IPs was also inserting link
getway.com.br
--Jorunn 12:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting!
- Editors who have added getway.com.br: 189.104.242.125 (16), Tonyhenrique (5), 189.104.236.232 (3), 189.104.207.232 (2), 189.12.49.153 (2), 189.105.11.50 (1), EJF (huggle) (1).
- Top 10 wikis where getway.com.br has been added: en.wikipedia (11), sq.wikipedia (3), cs.wikipedia (2), de.wikipedia (2), es.wikipedia (2), nl.wikipedia (2), pt.wikipedia (2), ja.wikipedia (1), hu.wikipedia (1), gl.wikipedia (1).
User:189.104.242.125(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:189.104.236.232(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:189.104.207.232(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:189.12.49.153(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
User:189.105.11.50(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
Maybe leading to
kurescek.info
apelosurgentes.com
aparicoesnoamazonas.kit.net
(the first of this three on en and pt wikipedia, the latter two only on en)
Probably involved (only added the domains named here):
User:Tonyhenrique
One of the IPs mentioned above has more on his list:
borko.data.bg
bgcd.narod.ru
bulgariainside.ru
Which leads to:
User:Daniela S.
Who has a lot of stuff, including handsfull of email addresses, top ten (out of 70 records, filtered what is already named):
ilianamirtschewa.dir.bg
ku-eichstaett.de
education.uncc.edu
michaelkratky.de
Pff .. some of this stuff may be genuine (or added to userspace, I see tracks leading to wikiversity?). But a second look would be nice here. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, this also reached the administrators incident noticeboard on en: link (permanent link). Maybe more blacklisting is needed here. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Beetstra: There's a lot of info to sift through - since you handled most of it, can you let us know whether anything need to be done here? Thanks — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll leave this, decline de-listing, the other links could be a problem and maybe could be added, but all need to be checked etc. Just archive this. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
SmartLabs.pl
Hi, someone plays very dirty.
#: # Nick1915 # request \bsmartlabs\.pl\b
This links to report from en:WT:WPSPAM: whitch even doesn't contain enything about SmartLabs.pl
So, why SmartLabs.pl is on black list ?
my mail: [email protected]
- According to
smartlabs.pl
- there was cross-wiki linking, including a very likely conflict of interest. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
what do You mean by cross-wiki linking ? Check page smartlabs.pl, we have more then one on-line educational aplication, some of them are in a few languages. Tehre was no cross-wiki linking. We always added correct links to valid content.
So what I have to do to take of smartlabs.pl from blacklist ?
- The thing is, we are writing an encyclopedia here, based on added content, not based on linked-to content. I would suggest you contact regulars on one or more wikis, and ask them if they think the link can be of interest to wikipedia. With cross-wiki linking is meant, that the link was added to more than one wiki, and deemed unhelpful on several of them. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
not exactly. The thing is every link was different. Different was content or language.
Second thing is, we can't put scripts on wiki, so if we want to share with educational aplications, we can only put links on wiki. I hope You have already found them very useful. --Smartlabs 10:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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 value in support of our projects. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your domain may well be removed.
- Until such time, this request is Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Have You ever been on http://smartlabs(dot)pl to see the true value of materials whitch are there ? Or it is simpler to decline ?
Compare value of content of current links with ours and be honest.
--Smartlabs 15:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
bombingscience.com
bombingscience.com
Hi,
I was trying to add a link on the Billboard Liberation Front wiki page to an interview with the BLF founder(bombingscience.com/index.php/blog/viewThread/1433) and I got an error message telling me that the domain was banned. Apparently the domain was blocked because a previous employee has spammed wikipedia with our link. This person is not working here anymore and we of course don't want to make any spam post on wikipedia. You can review the link above that we were trying to add and tell me if you can allow it to be posted on this page. Thank you Bombingscience 20:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- We don't generally remove links by request of the site owner, and certainly not to allow the site owner to add links (a conflict of interest). JzG 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but wikipedia is a wiki... so the link has to be added by the user. If there was someone in charge of the wiki page of the BLF, I would submit it to him so he can review the link, but unfortunately there's no one in charge... We are huge fans of BLF and we were thinking this interview would be great addition to their wiki page. It is not our goal to spam wikipedia at all! But if we can submit the link addition to someone else for review, it's fine with me...
- You can suggest improvements to the article on the associated talk page. Declined for now then. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reply. I have contacted someone already. Bombingscience 14:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
bosskey.net
bosskey.net
The link was added to en:Aliens versus Predator 2 during multiple vandalism (whole page was reverted multiple times; see article edit history) and added once to ru:Aliens versus Predator 2 by me while writing the article (see the report). Link adds meaningful information about article subject, which should not be placed in the article itself (as a game guide). ru:User:Jazz 80.93.176.70 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see vandalism on the report moreso than spam - page protection should have been used for that. The remaining pushing of the link seems manageable & if there is use for the link then I think this can be removed. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Removed -- — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
pulsar.net
Hi!
This domain was blocked because of being a forwarder/shortener [12]. It seems that it does not exist any longer. Apart from that the sbl entry blocks pulsar.net.pl, which is whitelisted at de-wiki and requested to be unblocked at en-wiki. Because the domain pulsar.net does not exist, I don't see any necessity to continue the blocking of this domain. So I unblock it now. If there are objections to that, just revert my edit and give a reason here. -- seth 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? The domain is 404, if it comes back as something worthwhile we can remove it but it may resurface in its prior form. Why remove it while it is in limbo? JzG 14:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- The domain was added to the blacklist more than one year ago. And it seems to be 404 for more than 6 months now. Probably nobody will use a 404 site as spam here. So presently there is no need to block that domain. The SBL entry would just waste server performance. If that domain will re-incarnate in e.g. March of 2009 as a shortener and somebody will use the domain for spamming again, we could just add it again. -- seth 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Though your concern is noble, Performance of the software or servers is not our concern, thanks. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, then just strike out the sentence about performance. There is still no sense of blocking a 404 site, if it was blacklisted for being a forwarder/shortener url. -- seth 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but if it comes back up & it's still a URL shortener...? Does \bpulsar\.net\b[^\.] do what I think it does? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- You don't need to mask the ".", so shorter would be
\bpulsar.net\b[^.]. But this would fail e.g. on "http://www.pulsar.net". So if that domain should be blacklisted in future, I suggest\bpulsar.net\b(?!\.). -- seth 20:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- You don't need to mask the ".", so shorter would be
- OK, but if it comes back up & it's still a URL shortener...? Does \bpulsar\.net\b[^\.] do what I think it does? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, then just strike out the sentence about performance. There is still no sense of blocking a 404 site, if it was blacklisted for being a forwarder/shortener url. -- seth 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Though your concern is noble, Performance of the software or servers is not our concern, thanks. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The domain was added to the blacklist more than one year ago. And it seems to be 404 for more than 6 months now. Probably nobody will use a 404 site as spam here. So presently there is no need to block that domain. The SBL entry would just waste server performance. If that domain will re-incarnate in e.g. March of 2009 as a shortener and somebody will use the domain for spamming again, we could just add it again. -- seth 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
lulu.com
lulu.com
I was trying to add a reference to a book published on lulu and got the spam message. A check showed the site lulu.com is not blacklisted. lulu.com/newbook probably is. How to reference a book published on lulu? Varnesavant
- This is not blacklisted on Meta, but it is blacklisted on English Wikipedia. Please ask on the local request page. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where it will be speedily declined due to rampant spamming and the usual problems with self-published books. JzG 19:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
sixxs.org
sixxs.org
The problems with the IPv6Gate have been resolved (the proxy adds .sixxs.org to every url so that one stays inside the .sixxs.org domain and thus all urls remain IPv6, but that also goes into forms and that caused this unwanted behavior, now <forms> are cleared of this and thus it should not occur anymore. See en:Talk:IPv6Gate for more details.
I also want to note that I was just made aware of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/sixxs.org and it would have been helpful if the talk pages of those referenced IP addresses also pointed back there. Please, if possible, do that next time, makes figuring out problems easier, especially when one is not completely known to the infrastructure of Wikipedia.
It seems that there where reports for this .sixxs.org adding already in April 2008. It would have been resolved much earlier if it would have been properly reported to either [email protected] as indicated on the talk pages of 213.197.27.252 and also simply one could have found that out by doing a little google search on sixxs.org or whois on the domain. Nevertheless, please report any other error either at [email protected] or on the talk page of the IPv6Gate.
In ref to that page, 213.197.27.252 is nlams01.sixxs.net which is one of the currently two instances of IPv6Gate. I have no idea why 67.162.136.214 would be having the same behavior as it is not one of our hosts. (Maybe it was sending back the responses of the POSTs over IPv4, but that would really be a broken setup...)
(I've temp added this page to my RSS feeder so that I can monitor responses) JeroenMassar 10:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- We don't report abuse to ISPs as a rule, abuse of Wikipedia is not necessarily in violation of their ToS. What is hosted on sixxs.org that needs to be linked, as a matter of interest? JzG 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- About the abuse-reporting, makes sense in the general case, but in the case of a proxy, I guess it might be beneficial to the general Internet to report issues like this as it might affect others too. Nevertheless, I've setup user pages at least at en.wikipedia so that people get pointed to correct details and contact information. As for the content, effectively none, as everything under *.sixxs.org (which means that the original website www.example.com is IPv4-reachable, and gets IPv6 reachable by going to www.example.com.sixxs.org) and www.example.com.ipv4.sixxs.org for the reverse effect (IPv6 site, IPv4 accessed). But IMHO it would be nice to be able to add a proper example to the en:IPv6Gate article. Except for that article, I actually don't have a problem with having it blocked as it should not exist anywhere as the original content can be reached elsewhere. In the case that one keeps *.sixxs.org blocked, please at least amend the status in the blacklist to reflect the reasoning and/or pointing to the IPv6Gate article. JeroenMassar 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that we are here to work on these projects, not defend the internet or run an abuse-reporting service. I think the conclusion here is to request whitelisting as required. As such, Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've updated [en:IPv6Gate] with the non-wiki style example links, that makes the article clear, but doesn't link to them (people can cut & paste if they want ;) This section can be closed. JeroenMassar 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I am commenting here. The problem with adding '.sixxs.org' is not only abuse from some IPs (I did not notice that they were related to sixxs.org, anyway), the problem is in wikipedia terms more complex. although 'example.com.sixx.org' would be caught by the rule '\bexample\.com' and hence still blacklisted, the sixxs.org domain addition can be used to circumvent other blacklisted rules, e.g. if the rule would be '\bexample\.com\/aboutexamples\.com\b'. There are not many of such rules in the blacklist (generally we blacklist the whole domain), but still, there are. For the additions I saw, there is no use in adding it at all in wikimedia, the only page that should be cross-wiki whitelisted (is that possible on meta?) is e.g. sixxs.org/about.htm (or whereever there is the main page), and possibly subdomains with sixxs.org documentation (are they on a suitable place, e.g. sixx.org/documentation). As such, I think not closed yet, may need some extra thought. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- .sixxs.org points to remote locations, www.sixxs.org maps to www.sixxs.net, which has an about page. The information page about this can be found at http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net and [en:IPv6Gate]. The talk page of the English article also details problem reports on Wikipedia (as IPv6Gate is being used a lot by users accessing and editing Wikipedia from it), the IPv4 addresses used also have User:Talk pages for them which point there. As such there is no problem for having the block for .sixxs.org, it would IMHO maybe be nice to add a comment that the block is in place to avoid people circumventing other blocks and to point either to the URL or the article describing it. (Then at least people might not think that it is a bad domain if they take care to read the list and not verbatim copy it :) JeroenMassar 11:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added a comment to the coibot XWIki report, which is the 'archive' of why it was added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
rachmaninow.narod.ru
rachmaninow.narod.ru
Please take my apologies, I didn't know that listing the link on the site on more than 2 different pages at once can lead to including the site in the blacklist. The link was placed on few European wikipages month ago without any problems, yesterday I placed the link on few Asian wikipages and have this result. The link was placed solely on the pages devoted to Rachmaninoff (Rachmaninov). Please remove from the blacklist, and allow to place the link on every page devoted to Rachmaninoff. Thank you in advance! Best regards,
- This was blacklisted after promotion of the domain across many wikis, which is clearly inappropriate.
- Due to past problems with excessive linking to this domain, I do not believe this request should be fulfilled. We de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. If such a situation arises, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and this domain may well be removed.
- Until such time, this request is Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
brugo.be
brugo.be
Extensive discussion on talkpage of the english whitelist (permanent link). Link may merit inclusion here and there, although the way it was added until now, by who it was added, and the way the editor who added it commented on removals is NOT acceptable. 
Removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. And the IP which instantly reinserted it on fr: appears to be the same abrasive individual associated with the site. One to watch. JzG 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it was not removed on fr. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 21:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, last insertion there was on the 6th, it was blacklisted after that, but not removed. The editor seems to be discussing on en, and I warned that IP on en as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see you are right. My bad. JzG 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I think removing this domain was a mistake. While there may be consensus to include (or at least allow inclusion) of the link, that would merit local whitelisting - not removing the domain from the global blacklist. There was cross-wiki abuse when this was added, and I see no indication that that would be any different now (in fact, rather the opposite). I'm not going to re-add this, however I think this merits discussion on Meta - our criteria for inclusion on this blacklist are not the same as the criteria at English Wikipedia. This should remain blacklisted globally and whitelisted on enwiki if there is consensus to do so. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- The editor has engaged in (more civilised) discussion, and apologised on the en wikipedia to the users involved. That was after my remark where I suggest that it should be clear to the user that he now should not continue to add the link to other wikipedias without discussion (and I hope that the users got that, he now should understand that we do watch). The link is still on the watchlist of the linkwatcher and of COIBot, I hope it is clear to the user that continued abuse will result in me, or other admins to take immediate action (i.e. relisting here without discussion, whitelisting on en and revertlisting on en:User:XLinkBot).
- The site really seems to be a serious go-site, praised by other established go-sites, and it is claimed by established editors that the site does contain information that can be of interest to improve wikipedia. For now, I assume good faith. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Troubleshooting and problems
|
|
This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems. |
User: namespace abuse
|
|
This section is for archiving User: namespace abuse. |
User:Wowgold3323
Wowgold3323 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
User:220.114.146.102(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
ugg4sale.com
crosswiki - userpage spam, deleted them on meta and commons. I don't have time to look deeper into this right now, help would be appreciated, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 09:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looks spammy to me and not the first time I've seen this pattern, I think... probably worth looking at related domains. For now, this one is Added. As always, thanks for your help, birdy. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
More on the same theme:
inugg.com
item4u.com
User:Jack1688
User:Jeep1688
User:221.206.36.162(IP tools: Google | WHOIS | domaintools | RBL | tools)
(spamhaus | projecthoneypot | malwareurl)
— Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, couldn't immediately find related links. These are Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- item4u.com was blocked alreasy, so I removed that entry. -- seth 15:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks seth — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- item4u.com was blocked alreasy, so I removed that entry. -- seth 15:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
|
|
This section is for archiving Discussions. |
"get sbl regexp from url" now on toolserver
ralated discussions:
- Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008-09#tool_for_log_searching
- Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008-11#archive.2Flog_searching
Hi!
Finally the tool is on the toolserver: [13].
Any more feature-requests? -- seth 12:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- If the tool is affected by replag, can you add a display of current replag and an potentially option to use up-to-date data from the relevant wiki(s) like Erwin has for his tool (
&forcelive=1)? I've added this tool to{{linksummary}}& I think it will be quite useful, especially for removal requests. Thanks for your work! — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- This idea sounds nice. At the moment I purge all used pages for every request, which generates a lot of traffic (almost 1MiB per request). I want to enhance that behavior anyway, so your idea of presenting a "last-update date" and giving the choice for purging would probably reduce this traffic. -- seth 01:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I made an example, how it could look like. It's just plain HTML without CGI (action=""), so form submission will be of no use. [14] What do you think? too much options? too complicated? -- seth 01:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would think that one either is content with replicated data, or not -- there's little use in having fresh data for the enwiki blacklist, but replicated data on the enwiki whitelist. Probably a simple "This data is 10 minutes old - if you need newer data, click here to fetch live data" is sufficient. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- ok, finished. is that ok? [15]. -- seth 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Great work! — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- ok, finished. is that ok? [15]. -- seth 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would think that one either is content with replicated data, or not -- there's little use in having fresh data for the enwiki blacklist, but replicated data on the enwiki whitelist. Probably a simple "This data is 10 minutes old - if you need newer data, click here to fetch live data" is sufficient. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I made an example, how it could look like. It's just plain HTML without CGI (action=""), so form submission will be of no use. [14] What do you think? too much options? too complicated? -- seth 01:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
What are the chances you can add a dropdown with all the wikis, or an inputbox for language & project so we can check any arbitrary wiki's blacklist & whitelist? On every wiki, MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist will work, though I wouldn't bother trying with the log - most wikis don't have a log.
This would let us automatically check whether a domain is on the blacklist or whitelist of any domain we want, which will be much faster than looking though them manually. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be a big problem to expand the script. But as a side-effect the script would perhaps be a possibility for bad guys to crash the toolserver (by looped purging of all projects). So I suppose it would be better to create a cronjob that starts a "wget" only once a day (well, it needn't be a real cronjob, I can restrict the script to doing this). Then the perl script should just use the files on the toolserver, if somebody selects "all".
- Apart from that, which options would you like to have?
- The easiest would be: radio buttons with the following 3 (or 4) options:
- 1. meta, en (incl. XLinkBot), de (i.e. the big ones, like it is at present)
- 2. all 28267467529 billions of wikis (but forbid purging)
- 3. meta and one user-defined project that may be chosen by a dropdown-list
- (4. meta and user-defined projects that may be chosen by a selection box with the possibility of multiple choices, (but forbid purging))
- What do you think? -- seth 20:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Really, I just wanted to add the possibility of using the tool to check one wiki of my choice - option 3 above, I guess. However, it is also nice to have the option to check the top X wikis (ideally where X is user-defined, with a default of, say, 5 - see the cross-wiki linksearch tool for comparison). — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- For example, I want to use it to check nlwiki's blacklist for the filmfocus request above - I don't need any other information than that. Instead, I searched myself - automating that would be nice. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible now to use a user-defined language. Our meta blacklist is always used though. -- seth 17:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good. Can we allow other projects? Right now it's only the Wikipedias. And probably your error message should say to email you, not the sysadmins :) — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- As well, after fetching live data, you're still offering the purge option -- probably that should be hidden when the last update is <5 minutes ago. This means when you've already fetched live data you won't see it, but also stops people from doing silly things like "Oh, it's 17 seconds replagged, let's hit purge" — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- 1. More projects: Which projects do you want? I guess here a drop list would be better than a text input like I did it for the languages.
- 2. Error message: I shortened the message and placed a permanent link to my talk page for bug reporting.
- 3. Hidden purge option. Shall I just hide it in the HTML interface or shall I even forbid this kind of purging in the cgi script? -- seth 17:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible now to use a user-defined language. Our meta blacklist is always used though. -- seth 17:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia you already have, but we also run the Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Commons, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikispecies, and Wikinews projects (see Special:SiteMatrix -- the toolserver has all this data somewhere...). For hiding the purge option, I'd say disallow it in the script proper. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Projects: done. (There is still some bug, but if you don't use "de" as a user-defined language, everything should work fine. I'll work on that later.)
- Purge: disallowed.
- -- seth 04:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)