Misplaced Pages

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herbythyme (talk | contribs) at 09:59, 23 November 2007 (→Squidoo: link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:59, 23 November 2007 by Herbythyme (talk | contribs) (→Squidoo: link)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spam-blacklist page.
Protected MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is a page in the MediaWiki namespace, which only administrators may edit.
To request a change to it, please follow the directions at Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist.
Shortcut

Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist only affects pages on the English Misplaced Pages. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. Any developer may use $wgSpamRegex, another method to prevent the addition of spam links. However $wgSpamRegex should rarely be used.

See Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

Dealing with requests here

Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks
  1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
  2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Is there a Spam project report, if so a permanent links would be helpful
  3. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regex - the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
  4. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. Request should be left for a week maybe as there will often be further relatede sites or an appeal in that time.
  5. Log the entry. Warning if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry you will need this number - 173255635 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

Those interested in contributing to this page may find it helpful to watchlist this page or create their own if they want to watch other pages as well. It effectively watches threads rather than pages.

There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. they are Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, and Discussion. Each section will have a message box explaining them. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

Requests which have been completed are archived. All additions and removals will be logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|173255635#section_name}}

Proposed additions

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

durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html

This link was brought to meta, but they suggested listing it here and posting the meta conversation. Here it is:

Hate site solely exists to discredit one person, spammed across Misplaced Pages on various pages to do the same. No redeeming value. --Let You2 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Should this one not be listed at en wp rather than globally? I see the disruption for sure but I'd get that in the local blacklist asap personally. See if you can get some action from an admin on en wp, if not maybe nudge me again but it is outside what should be on Meta in my opinion, cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Herby, I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the process and don't know any admins on en wp. I agree with you about the disruption, though. Could you help? Perhaps you know an admin or something. --Let You2 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to list this request here (maybe copy what is here almost - ie A. B.'s bit) that should get you somewhere I hope, cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

--You and Me3 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the information I posted on meta in response to this request; it's what Herby alludes to in his post quoted above:
Jason Gastrich has a long history on en.wikipedia:
There are unrelated durangobill.com links on other wikipedias, but only en.wikipedia has links to the durangobill.com page criticizing Gastrich. None are in article space; here they are:
Also see this list of domains owned by Jason Gastrich; some of them have been blacklisted on meta:
--A. B. 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this one still a current issue? Thanks --Herby 08:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

.blogpost.com

I propose the following links be blacklisted. I came across them while browsing the history of these albums: Saturday Nights, Sunday Mornings, Her Name Is Nicole, American Gangster (album), I-Empire, and In Rainbows.

The above URLs link to a virus (as reported here) and the following blocked accounts and IPs disguise it as a link where they falsely claim the album was leaked.

I see there are other reports on this talk page and on the actual blacklist relating to ".blogspot.com" addresses. Perhaps the whole ".blogspot.com" domain can be blacklisted. Spellcast 23:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got pointers to general policy on blog stuff? --Herby 11:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I was told some blogspot accounts are legit such as Robert Reich's robertreich.blogspot.com. So it's probably not a good idea to block the whole site. But the ones above should definitely be blacklisted though. Spellcast 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe it should be blacklisted at the root domain. There are a very limmited few that are legitimate per policy and those should be treated/included on a case by case basis via whitelisting.--Hu12 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I support that. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a future rise in whitelisting requests. Spellcast 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, then even:
Let's see how it gets used. --Dirk Beetstra 10:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam from vandal Wayne Smith AKA Universe Daily

  • www.robertgbarrett.com
  • www.myspace.com/wendimurdoch
  • www.opinion.com.au/5201_is_wayne_smith_who_bought_bindiirwin.com_a_cybersq.htm

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily

Yale s (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Monitor it. --Dirk Beetstra 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Both those sites belong to Wayne Smith and he has repeatedly posted them on pages. His Long Term Abuse page has this notation:

Instructions: Block on sight and revert Yale s (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

brighthub.com

The spammer, using the IP 121.246.26.90 was blocked on Friday for spamming this link, but the spammer has returned with the IP 121.246.25.140 today. See WT:WPSPAM#spam.brighthub.com. MER-C 08:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

bressimarkets.com

Persistent spammer Christopherbressi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (now indef-blocked) has been adding commercial links to the website for what appears to be his or his family's chain of supermarkets to various articles on cured meats (Salami, Sopressata, etc.) Has also edited as:

A link to this website has no place on Misplaced Pages, and the user has been warned and blocked repeatedly. android79 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

yep - no question to me &  Done, thanks --Herby 07:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

thenettimes.com

Links added from multiple IPs and single- or low-edit accounts.

and many more. Gimmetrow 21:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

www.belarussolidaritycampaign.co.uk

This was blacklisted form the Alexander Lukashenko page by an administrator, who termed the site as 'having no content' It clearly does. Now, if the link is deemed to be unsuitable then it ought to be discussed on the talk page. In my opinion the link in question, whilst granted is still a site under construction, is still a site that has relevance to the discussion of Lukashenko and Belarus. I propose that it be removed from the blacklist, so it may be linked to in the future if agreed in discussion on the talk page, but its dismissal by one administrator (zscout370) is at least a stifling of debate and objectivity, and at worse is censorship.

The website was just established and it has "Under construction" notices on the main page. The links that work are stating the goals for the group and begging people to join. This is pure linkspam, thus why I added it to the black list. User:Zscout370 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! The point I'm making is that the site is being updated and now does have information too. I concede that at the moment the site is not complete and as such is not worthy being a part of the current external links, however the blacklisting means that when that changes, or if wikipedia wishes to link to an article there in the future this will not be possible. I politely ask that the site be removed from the blacklist, (and also promise to refrain from adding it to the current list of external links).

--Belaruski 14:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The blacklist isn't permanent and I don't intend for this link to stay here forever. But right now, I think it should stay. I will go back to the site, lets say, weekly and look at it. But we get so many external links about Belarus and we got so many campaign sites from the UK, Poland that me and others just remove them all. I am starting to clear out other Belarusian links too, so your site isn't the only one seeing removal. User:Zscout370 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Any chance the link can be un blacklisted now? We recently held a demo in London, are a legally recognised body with international members and would like to set up a page of our own. A bit embarrasing when we can't link to ourselves! Thanks.--Belaruski 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 Not done per Zscout370--Hu12 15:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why not?--79.65.196.5 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference data:
  • Accounts adding these links:
--A. B. 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting guidelines if they are applied accross the board. However if you will look at the site in question and argue that none of the articles are relevant, or may in the future be relevant as external links then you are in effect allowing censorship on wikipedia. I agree that it is very easy for just anyone to link to themselves on Misplaced Pages, but the site in question is clearly not spam. --79.65.244.108 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the blacklist, but I still do not think the site should be added to Misplaced Pages. We get many Belarusian campaign sites and this is just one out of many that look and feel the same. User:Zscout370 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears A.B. was correct and they only wanted it removed so they could spam it again. See . Perhaps it could be added back. This isn't just spam, it's POV pushing spam. -- SiobhanHansa 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well rest assured it won't be added again. Misplaced Pages is clearly only as good as the individual with the biggest axe to grind and the most time on their hands. The link I posted is no less or more POV than the article or links from http://en.wikipedia.org/A_Day_of_Solidarity_with_Belarus But clearly objectivity is not what you're after. I would propose that the "not to be confused with" bit be reapplied as it's a point of clarification. But feel free to keep the argument one sided if that makes life easier for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belaruski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 Nov 2007

Per the comments above - closed as  Not done --Herby 19:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The link has already been removed by Zscout370 in September (see ), it possibly needs adding back. Though perhaps we could take Belaruski's word that the organization won't be promoted on Misplaced Pages again, and simply monitor the link. -- SiobhanHansa 13:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd certainly be in favour of monitoring this I think, call it "closed" anyway but with eyes open I guess, thanks --Herby 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Invisionfree (removal)

I request InvisionFree be taken of the blacklist. -King SweaterHead 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been some postings on the talk page of the Meta blacklist related to invisionfree.com links. Could you please remove or strip the links if you are going to keep it blacklisted? There seems to be quite many articles with invisionfree links in them here, and editors gets problems when the links are blocked.
Reference:
--Jorunn 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears to have been added last week by User:JzG, quoting "WikiProject:Spam Investigation" (see ). However I cannot find any discussion on WikiProject:Spam in the July, August or September archives.
There appear to be about a hundred links on article pages. I've checked out 15 instances and only one of those (the actual InvisionFree article) seems to be appropriate. Given that our guidelines consider forums to be external links to be avoided, I don't know that the one article where it is appropriate is significant reason to remove if it has been spammed. Worryingly links to these forums are even being used as citations. Blacklisting may even have the side effect of lifting the quality of some articles slightly. -- SiobhanHansa 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, actually. The ZetaBoards article's HOMEPAGE is invisionfree. Why exactly do they have an article about something that is blacklisted exacly? -King SweaterHead 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I've done a little more research since unfortunately JzG appears to have retired. I looked through JzG's contributions around the time he made the addition. I couldn't find any explanation documented but he did remove a bunch of the links just after he listed it and he edited the ZetaBoard article. I looked into several of the links he removed, and while I can't fault their removal (they were all either inappropriate external links or inappropriate references), when I looked at the history of who added each link I didn't find anything I would consider to be evidence of a spam campaign, it looked more like individual enthusiasts making good faith but poor judgement additions (see a selection of the additions:. However, I still tend to think the link should stay blacklisted with maybe the homepage only white listed for the ZetaBoards article. -- SiobhanHansa 18:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Do people here not understand what Invisionfree forums are? I run one for a small football club that does not have a website and it's therefore the only on-line presence for the football club that I support. I take great exception to your assumption that me trying to define it as an External Link on the Misplaced Pages page THAT I CREATED is spam! No, actually it's a Link to a web page that is about the subject. Can I please request that this global Blacklist on all Invisionfree forums be removed? Elvisgresley 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Invisionfree is then still not the only online presence. There will be items in newspapers (right?). The site itself does not assert the notability of the football club, that is governed by other sources. The link is useful as an external link (but it is not a must), and maybe for some parts as a reference (but then the specific link can be whitelisted). --Dirk Beetstra 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
In your opinion. However seeing as I am unable to even post a link from this page to my forum, you're actually unable to make an informed decision on this matter, are you? Could you please be so kind as to let me know how to request a whitelisting? Thanks so much, xxx Elvisgresley 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help - much appreciated. Isn't blacklisting invisionfree forums something of a futile exercise based upon dogma more than anything constructive? 1. They are not spam as they do not sell anything (in fact they actually cost money to run and most of them aren't begging for donations every 5 minutes - if you get my drift!). 2. They can be linked to by setting up a redirect link to another non-blacklisted url. Elvisgresley 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I indeed can not see the link, but if it is really the only link providing information, then the football club may not be notable .. indeed, we can not check, but then, everyone can create a forum on invisionfree, and then write a wikipedia page about it.
If it is your forum, then also our conflict of interest guideline may be of interest. Spamming is not about what is linked to, it is about how it gets linked. Invisionfree is self-published, and people certainly add the links to their own websites (again, see our conflict of interest guideline and our spam guideline). Forums do not comply with our reliable sources guideline, and as such, for now, blacklisting of such links is quite appropriate.
By the way, redirect sites should immediately be reported to the meta spam-blacklist, these are a general way of going around blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra 17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Forgot, MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist is the whitelisting, the accompanying talkpage is where you can request whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra 12:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to request that Invision forums be un-blacklisted. I don't see why there's any need to block *all* invision forums when it's probably only one or two that have been linked to in a spammy way.

I'm requesting this because I would like to restore the link to the "Different Worlds" forum in the Misplaced Pages Alternate History article. It was previously linked to in the Interactive Forums section of that article, because it's an active alternate history forum. That is, it's not a source but an on-topic link. It's not right to allow other forums to be linked to from Misplaced Pages, but not Invision forums. Akiyama 01:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

___ XLNT point Akiyama: are we now going to block all links to all forums? 'Cuz isn't it POV to decide to block the one? I've been forced into this situation by circumstance working on the Discussion Page. An earlier editor linked to __z4.invisionfree.com at z4.invisionfree.com/Bum_Bar_Bastards/index.php?showtopic=345&view=findpost&p=10945699__ .... This link's cool: a citation useful to our discussion and editing of the article and a citation that has stood since 29January2007. Now because of the lack of headers, I cannot save any changes to this page without deleting this other editor's contribution. Are there no grandfather provisions?! Hilarleo 14:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't support the idea of using the spam blacklist to enforce WP:EL, but I will say that any and all forum links should be removed from articles per WP:EL.--Isotope23 15:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I removed the link and commented in the # from that page.--Isotope23 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I expect that the link was spammed, and hence it was put onto the spam blacklist. It is not the case that we use the spam blacklist to enforce guidelines (or policies; except maybe for WP:SPAM, but that is what this was designed for), but that is a secondary effect (it may be worth a discussion). Forum links do not comply with WP:EL and WP:RS, even if they may make excellent references, how do you know the information in the link is true (it is a forum, anyone can post there)? --Dirk Beetstra 10:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As nothing else has been heard for a while - closed as  Not done --Herby 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql.htm

This website is used by countless people who use SQL. This is a Tutorial for those who are beginner's to SQL and a reference to the experts in SQL. This tutorial explains the SQL concepts in detail with appropriate examples in a simple manner.

Adding this website in the SQL sections of the Misplaced Pages, will help the programmers to learn SQL better and write better sql queries. Please remove this website from the list of blacklisted websites and help this website to be reached by more programmers who visit Misplaced Pages.

Few of the pages I want to use this link are: http://en.wikipedia.org/Sql http://en.wikipedia.org/Insert_(SQL) http://en.wikipedia.org/Select_SQL http://en.wikipedia.org/Join_SQL --206.218.218.57 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who added it... if anyone can confirm that the malicious scripting problem effecting beginner-sql-tutorial.com has been addressed, I've no objection to removing it. It was blacklisted due to a virus issue and if that has not been cleared up I'm not comfortable having it linked here.--Isotope23 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
See the discussion below about the blacklisting of this site due to malicious code. --A. B. 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

no Declined I hope I'm not overstepping the bounds here, but I just confirmed the continued malicious script execution attempts on that site with a colleague. It should not be delisted at this time and if the Anon is a good faith editor who isn't trying to infect other people's machines I suggest they do a virus scan on their machine.--Isotope23 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the site should also be blacklisted at meta ASAP to protect the rest of Wikimedia + other MediaWiki projects. I've got to run -- can someone else get this going? Thanks, --A. B. 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 Done on Meta but could do with a "request" in due course! Cheers --Herby 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I just got done adding a request.--Isotope23 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course it does mean that you can remove it from here if you want. No idea what the view/policy is on dupe entries tho? Thanks for the "request" I'll go log it shortly and if you bump into anything else like that you know where I am if I can help. Sorry I missed it before - been tidying up! cheers --Herby 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no policy on that (though AB may know something I don't). Might be worth having a discussion on that.--Isotope23 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think exploring the possibilities would be good. On Meta we are covering 700+ wikis and (I think) 2/3000 other sites using Mediawiki so "dangerous sites" would be appropriate there (IMO). (There is a sense in which I prefer to avoid the word "spam" in favour of external links as the usual spammer external link placer rarely see the links they place as spam.)
"Dual" listing is safe but the page gets long (& slow to load!) --Herby 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

***IMPORTANT REQUEST*** The problem with the webpage was without my knowledge. I have fixed it now. Please check the website and remove from blacklisting. Thanks, administrator

----206.218.218.57 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

At present the answer is definitely no. That is twice the site has been compromised. If you are unable to properly control the content and security of your site then we will not remove it from the list I'm afraid. Thanks --Herby 16:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. While I believe this is not the work of the site owner, I think that we need to see some more detailed information about how this will be avoided in the future as it has already been fixed and happened again.--Isotope23 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I deleted the infected page and added a new page for the website. No idea why the problem still exists. Please let me know what was the problem with the website. Is the problem with the technical content or is it IFrame - Exploit problem, please let me know what would be a possible solution. Rest of my webpages are good expect for the index page. I am trying to find a solution for it, so that i can provide a good website to wiki visitors. Thanks, administrator--206.218.208.57 (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It was the same malicious scripting as before (i.e. IFrame exploit). link scanner shows you've cleaned it, but given that you've cleaned it once and it was exploited again, I'm not comfortable removing the blacklisting quite yet... especially considering that it appears to me you don't know the root cause of why this is happening yet. It has nothing to do with the content of the site, I think we'd just like some evidence it won't happen again.--Isotope23 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I have fixed the problem with my website. Now the default link of my site is <my site name>/sql.htm , i have updated the link above. I had a chat with my service provider and got the workspace cleaned up and i have uploaded new pages. i checked all the pages in link scanner and found none of the pages are infected now. Earlier i was using index.htm as the default page which was infected, now i have removed it and i am using sql.htm as the default page. Please check the link and whitelist it. i will be using <my-site-name>/sql.htm while adding the links in the wiki pages. Thanks,administrator.--65.215.113.131 (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are the founder administrator. Unfortunately you have a conflict of interest.--Hu12 (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

no Declined. I'm not comfortable removing this from the blacklist. Its been demonstrated that this is too much risk to wikipedia and its users. Sorry--Hu12 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

www.elliottgann.com

please can you reconsider this entry ? 217.167.252.201 10:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As you have already appealed against this listing on Meta (where the blacklisting is) you would need to look at the whitelist here if you require a listing solely on en wp. The original meta request is here --Herby 10:48, 13 November 2007 (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 encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Misplaced Pages, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
--A. B. 01:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course but the goal is not to make links in wikipedia for elliottgann.com, I have totally left this idea deep in a hole. I'm already in DMOZ but I think that Google use the wikipedia blacklist and it's really annoying for a little website like mine. Of course I did bad when I put some links in wikipedia but now what is the goal to let my website in the blacklist since I was the only "spammer". Should I regret all my life ? Please can you reconsider ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.167.252.222 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That's entirely possible, but you should then request removal from the global blacklist where it was added. We don't have the power to do it here. -- lucasbfr 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Carnegie Council www.cceia.org

See meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Carnegie_Council_www.cceia.org_--_Mistaken_black_list_item for original request. I just found this link in Raphael Lemkin, and the referenced article (www.cceia.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_12/section_1/5139.html) seems quite reliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This item was blacklisted after long-term COI spamming. See report and folowing posts on this item in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Long_term_COI_spamming_by_Carnegie_Council. It is suggested there that it should be removed. I will go forward and remove it.  Done --Dirk Beetstra 17:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

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

Blacklisting email addresses

Does anyone know why this addition didn't work? E-mail address don't work? I added to the wrong place? I flubbed the regex somehow? None of the above? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist#Performance states it'll only work with links starting with http:. —Cryptic 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So it does. Unfortunate. Do you know if the meta blacklist has the same restriction? There are e-mail addresses in the list there so maybe they're using a different mechanism? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There are only two listed and I don't think that would work either way (unless possibly it was a "Clickable" mailto: type link --Herby 18:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh so you don't think those are working anyway. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to keep reverting (or try out one of the anti-spam bots - although I haven't great luck with those in the past). Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

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

archive script

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

Would be good - Eagle hasn't been working on Meta for a while though & I've not seen anything (there was supposed to be a logging script too!) --Herby 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

mapsofworld dot com

Why is this blacklisted? It stops me from editing User:Lupin/alltalk, which is irritating. It appears to be a reasonably harmless reference website. Lupin|talk|popups 08:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussion was here thanks --Herby 08:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Squidoo

Hi all,

The website squidoo.com seems to be blacklisted, which I think is a shame - there's plenty of good material there. I was hoping to add this link: www.squidoo.com/ledzep_mothership/ to the Mothership (album) article, as I think it's a decent enough resource. I'm aware that some of the subdomains are blocked on the wikimedia-wide blacklist, so it seems a pity to block the site totally. Especially when there's an article about the site, that can't link to it!

Annihilatenow (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hum - the request is here. Given the major spamming I'm not that surprised it was blacklisted frankly --Herby 09:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)