meta.wikimedia.org

Talk:Spam blacklist - Meta

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

snippet for logging
{{sbl-log|28241284#{{subst:anchorencode:SectionNameHere}}}}
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (example.com, not http://www.example.com). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived.

Following invernostone, I saw this edit, but the follow up does this from another IP, but same style and different urls.

Will need further cleanup I am afraid, both from IP- and from domain reports, and possibly collect more of this. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

xwiki linkspam related to these sockpuppets [1], confirmed via LWCU or related link additions via spamcheck. --Johannnes89 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Johannnes89: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --Johannnes89 (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Use a suitable 3rd level heading and display the domain name as per this example {{LinkSummary|targetdomain.com}}. Please do not add the protocol part of domain name, eg. http

Remember to provide the specific domain blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as {{removed}} or {{declined}} and archived.

See also recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals.

Notes:

  • The addition or removal of a domain from the blacklist is not a vote; please do not bold the first words in statements.
  • This page is for the removal of domains from the global blacklist, not for removal of domains from the blacklists of individual wikis. For those requests please take your discussion to the pertinent wiki, where such requests would be made at Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist at that wiki. Search spamlists — remember to enter any relevant language code

Request to remove jigsawpuzzlepark.com

[edit]

Hello,

I request the removal of jigsawpuzzlepark.com from the spam blacklist.

- The site has been cleaned up and is no longer violating Wikipedia’s guidelines. - It provides useful, relevant, and non-promotional content.

Please review and consider removing it. Thank you!

Urbancouriertimes (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Urbancouriertimes:  Declined per our guideline: we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests or anyone with a conflict of interest - which appears to be the case here. The same guideline applies to en.wikipedia as well. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Urbancouriertimes:  Declined this site was not blacklisted because of the content on the site, it was blacklisted because of the continuous unsolicited additions (1 addition per IP). Moreover, it is blacklisted locally on en.wikipedia, not here. Stop with the spamming. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 21:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Subject: Request for Fair Review of Blacklisting Decision & Guidance on Removal Process
Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
I understand that my site was blacklisted due to multiple unsolicited additions from different IPs. However, I would like to clarify that my internet service provider uses dynamic IP allocation, which is out of my control. As a result, my IP address frequently changes, which may have unintentionally created the appearance of multiple users adding the link. I want to emphasize that there was no deliberate spamming on my part.
I fully respect Wikipedia’s anti-spam policies and appreciate the need to prevent abuse. However, I kindly request a fair review of this decision, as similar puzzle-related websites such as Jigidi.com and im-a-puzzle.com have had links repeatedly added across Wikipedia but have not been blacklisted. This raises concerns about inconsistent enforcement, especially when my site provides valuable content that aligns with Wikipedia’s quality standards.
Additionally, since I have been informed that this blacklist entry applies locally to en.wikipedia, I would appreciate guidance on how to properly approach Wikipedia administrators to request a review and potential removal. Could you please advise on the correct process to follow?
If the issue is how the link was added rather than the content itself, I am open to following the proper steps for a fair review and ensuring compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Best regards, Urbancouriertimes (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Urbancouriertimes 'I fully respect Wikipedia's anti-spam policies ..' .. you did not, you were mass-adding your own link, which is just plainly against en:WP:COI, and en:WP:SPAM. Moreovoer, you pose your link as a en:WP:RS, which it absolutely is not.
Regarding the multiple IPs, no, we actually know that using multiple IPs to spam is generally one physical person, it is just that warning is futile. And since warning is futile (and even blocking the IPs is futile) we are rather fast in simply blacklisting the link.
Regarding jigidi.com and im-a-puzzle.com, maybe you are right, but then I want to point you to en:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Maybe it was spammed (and I will look into that), but that only makes that spamming ALSO wrong, it is not a reason for you to engage in that behavior as well.
It is locally blacklisted, Defer to :en:Mediawiki talk:spam-blacklist for removal request. I will refrain from that review and leave it to other admins. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I fully understand and respect Wikipedia’s policies on COI and anti-spam measures, and I now realize that I may have unknowingly entered links in a way that seemed inappropriate. However, I would like to highlight an important concern.
Many puzzle websites, not just Jigidi.com, thejigsawpuzzles.com, arkadium.com, puzzlewarehouse.com and puzzleit.club have been consistently using Wikipedia to gain SEO advantages by adding multiple links across numerous pages. A quick look will show that these sites have 50+ links, while my contributions were limited to only 3-5 relevant pages, ensuring they added value to the content.
I used Wikipedia for the first time and genuinely tried to contribute enriched content, learning from existing practices. If such link insertions are considered spam, I wonder why those other websites were never blacklisted. If they were added incorrectly, shouldn’t the same standard apply to all?
What I find concerning is that websites added from certain IP locations, such as the US and UK, appear to be given more leniency, while contributions from Asian IPs are flagged more aggressively as spam. If Wikipedia aims to be neutral and fair, shouldn’t the same standards apply to all contributors, regardless of their geographical location?
I am willing to provide examples of at least 10+ other puzzle websites that continue to have links on Wikipedia. If those links are acceptable, I’d like to understand how I can fairly participate in the same way without being flagged. If they are not acceptable, then I hope they will also be reviewed.
Lastly, could you kindly guide me on the proper way to approach en.wikipedia for a fair review of this issue? I want to ensure that I follow the correct process.
I appreciate your time and consideration. Urbancouriertimes (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Urbancouriertimes the first 2 are at 0, I checked them and removed just a couple. One was not added after a warning to the named account.
It may be you were unlucky that I was cleaning out a backlog, still, it does not make your actions right. Two wrongs don't make a right either. It is also not a reason to remove your link, and not a guarantee others will just be blacklisted, though that may be the result. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I understand that my actions may have been perceived as incorrect, but I want to clarify that I am not an SEO company, nor a daily spammer. I simply observed how other puzzle websites were able to add links to Wikipedia and followed the same approach, assuming it was an accepted practice.
If those websites had not been allowed to add links across 100+ pages, I would not have attempted to add a few relevant ones myself. It wasn’t a matter of being "unlucky"—it was that my IP was from Asia, and that seemed to make me an easier target for removal, whereas sites using US or UK-based IPs appear to have been given the benefit of the doubt.
For example, Jigidi.com has actively uploaded images and linked back to its own source on Wikipedia. The images don’t even belong to them, nor are they original photographs, yet they added mass links and were allowed to do so. As a result, they gained high rankings and positioned themselves as a leader, all while heavily spamming Wikipedia.
I am not writing to convince you to allow me to add links—that is not the point. But you should at least be aware of where all this started. If my approach was wrong, I acknowledge that, but I can clearly see the double standards at play here. If adding links is considered spam, why has their activity gone unnoticed for years?
I may have added information, but I did not mass-spam. I followed what was already being practiced in the industry, assuming it was permitted. If I wrote a book on puzzles and added it to Wikipedia, would it also be labeled as spam just because of my IP location?
I am not a spammer—I am a follower. I learned from what was already allowed, and if that was incorrect, I accept it. However, I do hope that all contributors are held to the same standards, regardless of their location.
I appreciate your time in reviewing this. Urbancouriertimes (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
"Why has their activity gone unnoticed for years?" Wikipedia and their sister projects are run by volunteers. Sometimes we notice spam quite quickly, sometimes we don't. That's often a matter of luck, also dependent on how clever spammers conceal their activities. If you give us concrete examples / links which pictures have been uploaded to Commons despite being a copyright violation and spamming external links, we will take a look. Common sense should tell you that this kind of behaviour is definitely not wanted. Johannnes89 (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Your assessment is plainly incorrect. For the latter three I do not see any 'campaigning' to get the links added. The current situation with Arkadium links that are there are not of the same nature of the links you have added (just a few anyway). The situation with puzzlewarehouse.com was also different than your additions, it was however one document linked in 3 different places, and though there was a better way of conveying the information, the nature of that page was totally different from what you linked (note that one of these references was added years ago by an editor with hundreds of thousands of edits, and over a thousand edits in January 2025 alone; the other two were added by two other editors). For puzzleit.club there are no current links, nor any records for additions.
Your assesment of the first two was right in that they were inappropriately linked. Only for one of them I could start to consider it spamming, though the warning that was given there was seemingly heeded (it stopped).
No, you are wrong in that you are a follower. I pointed you already to en:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, there is material on Wikipedia that is not supposed to be there. A follower would mean that you are aware of our guidelines and policies and abide by them. While on the road you have to follow the rules, even if there are other drivers who do not. Try that argument with a police officer ...
And maybe you want to really read through en:WP:COI. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I understand Wikipedia’s policies and respect its anti-spam rules. However, I want to clarify that this was my first time contributing to Wikipedia, and I approached it by following what industry leaders had already done. Just like learning architecture or any other structured system, understanding Wikipedia’s contribution guidelines takes time.
Regarding your police analogy, I want to highlight a broader issue. In the U.S. justice system, studies have shown that Black males receive sentences 13.4% longer and Hispanic males 11.2% longer than White males—not directly related here, but it reflects a pattern. In this case, Asian IPs seem to be treated as "Black males" in your system, while US, UK, and European IPs are treated as "White males."
The reality is that Asian IPs become an easy target, while websites like Jigidi were able to add links freely across hundreds of Wikipedia pages, despite providing only basic, non-extraordinary information. Meanwhile, my site was blacklisted after just 3-4 relevant pages, whereas others received only a warning despite much larger-scale spamming.
If publishing high-quality puzzle-related content is not considered spam, then I might as well write a full book on puzzles—but as I said, you would still likely consider it spam because of my IP location. In all my contributions, I added missing information that was not present in the original Wikipedia articles. My intention was never to spam but to enrich the content with relevant details. Perhaps my choice of content placement was slightly wrong—I now realize that writing a comprehensive book on puzzles and contributing in a different way might have been a better approach.
That said, I appreciate your time, and I won’t be attempting to add anything further to Wikipedia. I just wanted to make sure you understand where I’m coming from.
Thanks for your response. Urbancouriertimes (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Urbancouriertimes You received a message after your very first edit, and performed 10 edits in total, using 9 different IPs. Note 'after just 3-4 .. pages'. Moreover, the additions were not to 'relevant pages'. Warning would have been totally useless. The only one of the 5 links that you gave where I could consider 'spamming' was an account that made 3 additions in total, and stopped after being warned. For the other 4 I do NOT have any evidence of spamming. But you are free to show me that the other 4 were actually spammed.
I know those statistics, I know they are skewed, I know there is unfairness in it, but also understand that there are reasons to such distributions (which is not dissimilar with spam issues). In this case I just saw 10 IPs adding links, I have not bothered looking at the origin, but thank you for the implicit ad hominim.
The reality is that I have only 38 recorded additions of jigidi (not 'hundreds') by 29 different editors, of which several reviewers, admins, bots and bureaucrats (only 6 IPs of which 2 which I can remotely suspect to be 'spamming'), over about 9 wikis (of several hundreds we monitor), that most of those were reverted before I started looking at it (I think there were only a good handful left). Note that some of those cross-wiki uses are due to people copying and translating text between wikis,
In short, I have NO evidence of the other links being spammed beyond 2-3 additions (if even; you are free to show me wrong). That is in stark contrast with your point, 10 link additions under the assumption that 'if other's can be spammed, so can mine'.
So I understand where you are coming from, but understand that you are completely wrong in that assumption of where you were coming from. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
After carefully reviewing your response and the notes provided, it seems that your intent is to validate that Jigidi's 38 editions were appropriate. It appears that Jigidi's actions, such as adding a single link in various languages, were deemed acceptable. However, it's important to note that Wikilinks are primarily relevant for SEO, and not for adding the same single URL repeatedly. This can be allowed, as only a single link is added to Wikipedia. The idea might be that adding a single link, even in different languages, still points to the same content, which could be seen as a more legitimate and relevant contribution. However, if the intent is purely for SEO or promotion, even if done in multiple languages, it might still be viewed as problematic.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
While I understand your perspective and that you may not consider it spam, I, however, view it differently. Regarding the 9 IPs, as I’ve explained, the frequent changes are due to my ISP, which assigns new IPs at regular intervals—something I have no control over. I understand that from your point of view, this may look like spam.
It seems unlikely that there will be a reversal of the decision, as doing so could potentially undermine your decision-making process. Additionally, I understand that you may not take any action against Jigidi, as that would imply reconsidering your decision.
Although I am not an expert in Wikipedia policies, I have learned that the location of the IP does play a role. For example, users from the US, UK, or Europe may receive warnings, but those from Asia could face more immediate consequences, such as a ban.
I hope this helps clarify my position, and I appreciate your time in reviewing my concerns. Urbancouriertimes (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's the same picture, just viewed from 9 different language versions. The original file is c:File:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg. A trusted user inserted the link three years ago, believing it was the file source [2], but that's wrong, I therefore removed it [3]. Johannnes89 (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have noticed that the same technique is being used by puzzlefactory.pl, which later redirects to puzzlefactory.com.
https://br.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restr:Mar%C3%ADa_Victoria_Cervantes,_c._1950s.jpg
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sujet:Vrv031tpqkq005h2
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mar%C3%ADa_Victoria_Cervantes,_c._1950s.jpg
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Mar%C3%ADa_Victoria_Cervantes,_c._1950s.jpg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mar%C3%ADa_Victoria_Cervantes,_c._1950s.jpg
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Mar%C3%ADa_Victoria_Cervantes,_c._1950s.jpg
https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Mar%C3%ADa_Victoria_Cervantes,_c._1950s.jpg
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Mar%C3%ADa_Victoria_Cervantes,_c._1950s.jpg
This site has experienced a significant increase in visits (at least 5 times) , possibly after being linked by so-called 'Wikipedia Trusted Users.' It seems that a similar approach was used by jigidi.com, and both websites benefited greatly from these links.
However, it raises the question—were they allowed to do so because they originate from 'trusted' regions such as Europe, the US, or the UK? Meanwhile, as someone with an Asian IP, I face restrictions? It feels like a double standard.
Although you now removed; you noticed jigidi.com was on following pages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Long_pages
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Griepenkerl-Faistauer.jpg
Now that you are aware of the technique used by both sites—spamming heavily and gaining an unfair advantage through Wikipedia links to boost their Google rankings—perhaps it would be appropriate to review their links and consider removing and banning them. Given the impact on fair competition, would it also be possible to take necessary actions, such as restricting or banning their (puzzlefactory.pl and Jigidi.com) practices? Urbancouriertimes (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
As I mentioned, I am new to the Wikipedia field and the techniques used by trusted users. However, I have been able to look into past instances and uncover how this site gained an unfair advantage through Wikipedia.
It appears that when puzzlefactory.com sources were removed from Wikipedia, they switched to puzzlefactory.pl and then redirected traffic to the main site—another clever technique seemingly leveraged by trusted users from a European country.
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E8%B5%9B%E7%90%B3%E5%A8%9C%C2%B7%E6%88%88%E9%BA%A6%E6%96%AF
puzzlefactory.pl/en/puzzle/play/movies/198795-selena-gomez
puzzlefactory.com/movie-puzzles/198795-selena-gomez-jigsaw-puzzle
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Gomez
puzzlefactory.pl/en/puzzle/play/movies/198795-selena-gomez
puzzlefactory.com/movie-puzzles/198795-selena-gomez-jigsaw-puzzle
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macizo
puzzlefactory.pl/es/etiquetas/macizo
puzzlefactory.pl/es/etiquetas/macizo
puzzlefactory.com/es/tags/macizo
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natsu_Dragnir
puzzlefactory.pl/fr/etiquettes/Natsu+Dragneel
puzzlefactory.com/fr/tags/Natsu+Dragneel
This kind of double standard not only creates an unfair advantage to trusted user (trusted countries) but also negatively impacts our ability to compete on a level playing field. I hope such practices are reviewed to ensure fairness for all contributors. Urbancouriertimes (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Additional instances of puzzlefactory.pl redirecting to puzzlefactory.com
I have limited access to search on Wikipedia, but you should be able to find more such instances of puzzlefactory.pl ultimately redirecting to puzzlefactory.com.
zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E8%B5%9B%E7%90%B3%E5%A8%9C%C2%B7%E6%88%88%E9%BA%A6%E6%96%AF
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Gomez
pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%A9s
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macizo
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natsu_Dragnir
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapozytyw
Hopefully, with the evidence of these spam techniques now clearer, appropriate action can be taken against puzzlefactory.pl and puzzlefactory.com. Given the unfair advantage gained through such methods, would it be possible to review their links and consider necessary measures (like ban) ?
I wonder where puzzlefactory.com (or later puzzlefactory.pl) learned the practice of using images as a tool to create backlinks in multiple languages on Wikipedia. Perhaps the answer lies with Jigidi.com
(Jigidi.com)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Sibylla_Merian
no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurlandsdalen Urbancouriertimes (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Despite the detailed spam evidence we provided regarding puzzlefactory.pl and puzzlefactory.com, we have yet to receive a response. We clearly outlined how jigidi.com, puzzlefactory.com, and puzzlefactory.pl have used images as spam tools across multiple languages to build extensive links for SEO on Wikipedia.
While our account was swiftly flagged and banned as spam, it seems significantly more time has been taken to address the evidence against these sites. We trust that fairness and consistency will be upheld in evaluating this situation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We remain hopeful for a just resolution. Urbancouriertimes (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Urbancouriertimes you are repeatedly referring to yourself as "we". Please note that account sharing is not permitted per en:WP:NOSHARE and will result in blocking this account on most projects, once local admins notice.
As to "fairness and consistency", I'm going to repeat myself: We are volunteers and the extend and speed to which spamming is detected and dealt with always depends on volunteer capacity and sometimes sheer luck. The existence of other potential spam links will not help your case with your domain. We will deal with the other links, once volunteers find the time and desire to do so (personally I don't know if/when I will find the time). Johannnes89 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Urbancouriertimes you are stating that 'trusted users' are inserting your competitors' websites for spam reasons, 'techniques' to get their links on Wikipedia. No, some users are using those links in good faith, like the insertion of the link as a 'source' on a picture page, whereas that was not the correct source. Some people find information they need on one of these sites and use it as a 'source' (again in good faith). Also that is misplaced, but not spam.
And some of the links may have been spammed by site owners or their hired SEO companies, but they were not caught in the act. This is a volunteer project, and we may miss things, there are indeed 'techniques' that make it more difficult for us to see it.
Regardless, such links should be removed, and if the additions are/were unstoppable (if the links were spammed), they should be prevented in one way or another.
Your actions, on the other hand, were pretty blatantly visible, a rotating IP in a short burst of edits. Normally that results in warnings or blocks, sometimes autoreverting and warning, sometimes in blacklisting. In your case, the former three were not suitable as you were on a rotating IP, so the only way to stop you was blacklisting. You ignored there the Wikipedia software suggestion to make an account, bypassed warnings.
But what you present to us is evidence that there are links on Wikipedia to competitors' websites, not evidence of spam(ming). If we find that your competitors' websites spamming is unstoppable we may resort to blacklisting them as well, otherwise you will have to live with the fact that your website is blacklisted, and others' websites are not. You may think that is unfair, but you were editing in violation of many of en.wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And strictly, I feel that you pointing out competitors' websites is also a violation of conflict of interest regulations. You got caught in the act. Complaining further is not going to help or significantly change things. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I believe there’s been a misunderstanding. When I mentioned "trusted users," I was referring to spammers who appear trusted to you simply because their IPs are not from Asia. I did not use multiple IPs to cheat; my ISP assigns dynamic IPs, which is beyond my control—similar to what happens when you connect to the internet through a mobile network. This was my first time using Wikipedia, and I wasn’t familiar with such rules.
It seems like this ban is primarily due to the fact that my contributions came from an Asian IP, while contributions from IPs in the USA, UK, or Europe are considered more reliable. Please understand that my intention was not to reduce competition by pointing out certain competitors' websites. I flagged them because their actions directly put me in this situation. I discovered that they use Wikipedia to boost their value by adding content, and I followed the same approach. The only difference is that Wikipedia appears biased against contributions from Asian IPs.
When clear spam from sites like Jigidi.com or Puzzlefactory.pl exists, it seems no action is taken. However, contributions from Asian IPs are scrutinized and often banned. This creates an unfair environment where others will eventually follow the same techniques, and their contributions will be treated differently depending on their location.
Additionally, while you focused on a minor term like "we", you overlooked the numerous spam links from those sites. I hope you can reconsider this situation with fairness and an open mind.
I’m considering creating a YouTube video to expose how certain firms exploit Wikipedia to boost their presence in favored countries. I’ll explain how images can be used as tools for spamming and how some Wikipedia admins knowingly allow such practices to continue. Perhaps these examples will help others realize that using IPs from "advanced" countries is more effective than using Asian IPs. I’ll also show how a single image across different language versions can be used for spamming, which Wikipedia admins seem to allow without issue. However, this has nothing to do with you personally. I just don’t want another good site like mine to be unfairly banned on Wikipedia. Urbancouriertimes (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Let me summarise: Your URL is not going to be removed from the blacklist no matter how many more responses you post. I am inclined to globally block your account given its intent seems to entirely to promote your website. Wikipedia admins do not "allow" any of the things you claim they do; rather they haven't got round to stopping them. As you are finding here, when attention is drawn to unwanted behaviour, the result is action to stop it. MarcGarver (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am going to add to this. 'This was my first time using Wikipedia', yes, but you got the message that you better make an account, and I believe that you had to solve a captcha when adding a 'new' external link. I am fully aware how IPs work, my point there is only that I have NO way of contacting you, and therefore that other ways of stopping you are futile.
'I flagged them because their actions directly put me in this situation.' No. YOU chose to edit as an IP, YOU chose to add external links. You found out that Wikipedia does not allow it. You are fully responsible for the actions you took and the effect it had. They did not make you do anything. You don't even know if they added the links, so you did not 'discover' that they use 'Wikipedia to boost their value by adding content' because 'they' did not use Wikipedia to boost their value by adding content. You have no evidence they did it.
'It seems like this ban is primarily due to the fact that my contributions came from an Asian IP'.. No, I blacklisted the site because I had no other ways of stopping you. I could care less where you come from, the point is that we need to stop spamming, if you think we should let people from Asian IPs spam because they are Asian then you have your priorities wrong.
'I discovered that they use Wikipedia to boost', no, you did not discover that, you have not shown ANY edits that spammed the links, you have only shown that there are links on Wikipedia. And that is because on the basis of those 1 or 2 IP edits you cannot establish a pattern that suggests that they are spamming, and really, if there are 25 additions by named, established users who are have no relation to the subject, and 3 or 4 from 4 independent IPs, then there is no pattern of spamming that is needed to be blocked. 'THEY' did not spam Wikipedia, YOU did.
No, we did not overlook them, they are not there, they are only in one place, which 'shows' in other place That single image is not used for spamming across different language versions. It is even unlikely that the links were added for promotional reasons, for most additions it is unlikely that site owners or their SEOs were involved.
It is therefore not an unfair environment, it is plainly that YOU were spamming your website, and none of the other websites were spammed (by their site owners), you cannot find any evidence that those links were spammed to Wikipedia, you only know that they were added. And I told you, most of them by trusted, established editors, not by 'trusted IPs' (whatever that may be).
In short: your links were fairly banned because you were spamming, by your own admission, your links to boost your site, and you have not shown any evidence that other links were 'unfairly' not banned because there is no evidence of spamming whatsoever. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Request to remove pro...ru

[edit]

  • Currently, the line \bpro-(?!(goroda|speleo|otdyh|box|.dspl)).*?.ru\b blacklists all websites from the .ru zone that start with pro save for a handful of exceptions. It blocks many legitimate websites including https://prо-vоlhоv.ru and https://prо-derbent.ru, which are used as RS in Russian Wikipedia (and have to be whitelisted; I've circumvented the block by replacing the Latin o's with Cyrillic о's). Moreover, due to a dot escaping error in the regex (.ru), even more websits are blocked incorrectly. Please consider changing it to block a more narrow list of domains, and fix the .ru problem. Le Loy (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).
This section is for discussion of Spam blacklist issues among other users.