MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Proposed additions: added allkpop/tokyohive.
Line 95: Line 95:


==allkpop.com & tokyohive.com==
==allkpop.com & tokyohive.com==
{{Link summary|allkpop.com}}
*{{Link summary|allkpop.com}}
{{link summary|tokyohive.com}}
*{{link summary|tokyohive.com}}


I linked both sites as they're related. They're Asian pop news blog that basically translates news and gossip articles into English (allkpop is Korean, tokyohive is Japanese). it's just run by a small group of...staff, I guess, that just post translated news (with some "exclusives" once in a while). At best, it's questionable and/or biased due to possible translation issues (there's been controversy over their translations in the Korean media), and at worst it's just untrue (see [http://www.allkpop.com/2009/08/2pm_in_usa_2010 this article they retracted]). I tried my best to remove it under [[WP:RS]], but it just gets re-inserted frequently due to the low number of English sources on Korean pop. If this can't or won't be blacklisted, can someone direct me as to where to go? Thanks in advance. [[User:SKS2K6|SKS]] ([[User talk:SKS2K6|talk]]) 07:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I linked both sites as they're related. They're Asian pop news blog that basically translates news and gossip articles into English (allkpop is Korean, tokyohive is Japanese). it's just run by a small group of...staff, I guess, that just post translated news (with some "exclusives" once in a while). At best, it's questionable and/or biased due to possible translation issues (there's been controversy over their translations in the Korean media), and at worst it's just untrue (see [http://www.allkpop.com/2009/08/2pm_in_usa_2010 this article they retracted]). I tried my best to remove it under [[WP:RS]], but it just gets re-inserted frequently due to the low number of English sources on Korean pop. If this can't or won't be blacklisted, can someone direct me as to where to go? Thanks in advance. [[User:SKS2K6|SKS]] ([[User talk:SKS2K6|talk]]) 07:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:35, 14 February 2011

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins

    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    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? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages).
    4. 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.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. 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 - 413840288 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|413840288#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|413840288#section_name}}
    →A user-gadget for handling additions to and removals from the spam-blacklist is available at User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-blacklist-Handler


    Proposed additions

    sikhkaras.com

    Repeatedly using anonymous IPs to add link (which, while I do not understand the language used, appears plain to be a commercial site for selling various religious items) to Sikhism, and, while my memory is not fresh on this, I believe to other Sikhism-related articles. --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much activity with this link. I see it was added by 117.199.85.120 (talk · contribs) and 117.199.90.124 (talk · contribs) to Sikhism in December, and in late January it was added by 59.94.208.231 (talk · contribs) to Guru Gobind Singh, which I have just removed. There doesn't seem to be a push to spam this link, and the first two seem to be the same person. The last one, based on the editsummary, may be a good faith attempt to include a quotation.
    COIbot, oddly, doesn't report any activity with this link. What's up with that? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    COIBot was triggered by this;
    Also;
    Worth noting, Sikhkaras.net is unrelated to the .COM of the same name, however, was added by SikhKaras (talk · contribs).--Hu12 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hidden wiki

    kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

    This is a Tor link and it's required to install Tor on your computer to view it. Sorry I can't use the LinkSummary template with this (I don't think) and (since there is no www. prefix) I included the entire link; I hope this is OK.

    The discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Link to HiddenWiki at Tor (anonymity network) explains the situation. To summarize, this link

    1. is not a good link, since users get a deadlink message (unless they have installed Tor).
    2. is not a good link, since it's to a wiki (no editorial oversight).
    3. is not a good link, since it contains highly inflammatory material (child porn, suborning of felonies, etc.).
    4. is (probably because of point 3) a favorite of trolls and general longterm headache. For instance, see [[1]]. Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would blacklist all of .onion as having no legitimate linking reason anywhere. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with blacklisting all .onion links. They should be treated in same way we treat links to Rich Media, in that we avoid them and favor links that can be viewed without any additional software. This does not mean however that we need to blacklist it. The Wikipedia:External links#Rich Media policy clearly show how this particular situation should be handled and I see no reason why we should divert from the policy and blacklist everything. The Wiki is a separate matter altogether and should be treated like that, since it has links in it which people claim is linking to criminal information like child porn, and this is the only point relevant in adding it to the blacklist, in which I dont have a opinion one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belorn (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I disagree with adding the wiki to the blacklist on the simple basis that we should follow the guidelines in WP:BLACKLIST and try the conventional methods first. The blacklist should not be used as a way to bypass WP:Consensus, it should be used as a last resort against spammers. Herostratus arguments is good arguments against the link, and thus belong on the talk page as way to create consensu, and maybe now consensus can be reached with the additional people who commented here and in Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Link to HiddenWiki at Tor (anonymity network). The reason this link has in the past been added and removed so much is that there has not been a clear consensus on the issue to keep the link. As for real spammers, in the last half year there had been exact 3 trolls doing 1-4 edits each. Are we really saying that normal methods cant handle this and we need to apply blacklisting to handle the situation?Belorn (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the problems are too grave, Belorn, so I would not be against blacklisting. Note that for copyright violations or other emergencies we immediately bypass that per WP:IAR etc. However, I have for now revertlisted onion on XLinkBot (the use that I saw is .. not appropriate, and that this is a wiki does not help). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding to this. If I go through the additions of .onion sites, I see that most of it is being pushed - hard. Several established editors (including now me) have removed these links, over and over, as inappropriate. In several cases there are, arbitrary, linkfarms containing a handful of .onion links, unencyclopaedic, and unnecessary. These removals are undone, over and over, by a large number of SPA's (mainly hit and run IPs). That is the type of abuse that gets links onto blacklists, especially since the proper use of these links is minimal. Whitelisting these specific links, which have a reasoned and reasonable use, can take care of the few links that are of interest, keeping the (slowly getting massive) abuse low .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that Dirk's proposal of blacklisting the majority and whitelisting whenever appropriate is a reasonable response to the situation we've got (e.g., massively inappropriate links that are being added by (apparently) a variety of users). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It would if that was the situation in regards to .onion links, but I see no such indications in the history at Tor (anonymity network). The only actively disputed link has been the wiki. All the other .onion links added in the past was the result of consensus, thus not the result of spamers and trolls. Maybe as a preempt action could this be called for, but we would then have to invoke WP:IAR again so we can ignore WP:NO-PREEMPT. I propose instead that the better action here would be to deal with the wiki link in question, using WP:IAR and blacklist it, or following the guidelines in WP:BLACKLIST and give it time to see if that resolve the issue. And then in regard to any other .onion link, we use normal procedure with consensus and watching the article until there is clear indication that those methods is failing in maintaining quality of the article.Belorn (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we already know that you have staunchly support the inclusion of these links in every discussion. We have heard you. However, we are not agreeing with you. Your arguments in favor of these links (e.g., the consensus of a couple of editors at one article should trump all other considerations) are weaker than the arguments against these links (e.g., that the Wikimedia Foundation has a mandatory policy against linking to child porn). It's not necessary to repeat your view: we know what it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "comment on content, not on the contributor". I have not argued those things, or made claims like that.
    1. I have made no argument that claim consensus of a couple of editors should trump all other considerations. My argument has always been, in each post that mention it, that we should apply the least amount of force to deal with the issue as marked down my Wikimedia Foundation own policies. Just because a policy says we should avoid a type of link, does not mean we should throw all policies out the window in regards to unknown number of sites which content is also unknown.
    2. To support that we follow Wikimedia Foundation own policies in using the least amount of force is not the same as saying lets use a link, 'or that I am in support of the wiki link.
    3. I am of the belief that not all onion links point to child porn, which is the same as my belief that not all normal web links point to child porn. If the facts being claimed is that everything is child porn, then there was no point discussing this as there is no argument against a belief like that.
    So Im just going to drop this now and apply WP:DEADHORSE. When the arguments start to end on the contributor and facts are thrown out of the window, then its time to leave this and simply hope that any result wont be too much damage on the article.Belorn (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support blacklisting all .onion -- if such links indeed require the user to have Tor installed, then such links violate Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #8, which says to avoid direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content. Wikipedia need not allow linking to places that are useless to the majority of users. When an entire top-level domain has the characteristic of requiring special software, that's seems a valid reason to blacklist it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The technical aspect is easy to verify: No matter what you type into your browser, if it ends in .onion, you'll get an error message. "google.onion", for example produces "Server not found Firefox can't find the server at google.onion" on this computer. The entire .onion domain just doesn't exist in any official name server. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support blacklisting all .onion per Herostratus, Stifle, & Amatulic.
      ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blacklisting all .onion, support blacklisting the Hidden Wiki As Belorn said, the blacklist shouldn't be used to trump wp:consensus, and I tend to be of the mind that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"... It's highly unlikely that there will be RS material available solely through a .onion site, so we already have plenty of rules and guidelines to manage that. Obviously, instability is also a big concern with .onion sites, beyond the need for additional software. Nevertheless, in the (however unlikely) case that there is useful info available only via a .onion site, the blacklist would have a negative impact on all our goals. Blanket bans are not the solution here, esp. since there appears to be very little spamming activity coming via .onion sites other than the Hidden Wiki (which doesn't meet any criteria for a good source anyway). DigitalHoodoo (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    hollywoodphotographs.com

    Retroactively marking here, the IP was adding it to a non-insignificant number of pages. Would appreciate comments on its addition. tedder (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The site pretends to be an archive of photographs but exists to sell prints. It has been spammed and reverted dozens of times, and not just on the English Wikipedia. I'd say go ahead and add it to the list. I just finished cleaning up the remaining articles that contain this link (one of which was a blatant advertisement). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, nothing more than a e-comerce site selling prints and digital images. "The fee to print each 8X10 photograph is $20. This fee is in addition to the personal use photo charge of $50 or the commercial use photo charge of $75. "(hollywoodphotographs.com/types-of-use/ & hollywoodphotographs.com/types-of-images/). --Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Already  Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    allvoices.com

    This is a "citizen journalism" site similar to examiner.com or associatedcontent.com (or similar sites such as ehow, etc.) It:

    • Allows anyone to sign up and contribute without providing more than an email address or even a twitter account (see http://www.allvoices.com/user/signup2?width=75%25&height=90%25 to verify)
    • Allows posting any material without independent editorial review
    • Compensates participating content authors on a pay-per-impression model

    As such, it has all of the usual problems with such sites. In addition, a review of where it's being used in article space shows that it's commonly used to support POV statements with an unreliable source. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked for a COIBot report, though the sentence "Share in our success by earning cash rewards through our incentive program" on http://www.allvoices.com/help/signup seems to make this a good candidate already. Lets see if this got abused for this reason already. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    200 or so Wikipedia articles contain links to this place. Mostly as external links rather than references, as far as I can tell from a quick look at a random sampling. Many of the links have embedded videos, and it appears some videos have been removed as copyright violations. Authors of articles have a sort of internally-generated "credibility" score, which seems not much different than a popularity rating. No independent editorial oversight that I can tell. I agree, blacklist this. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com

    spam by Eric H, on the meds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). --viniciusmc 20:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved this to the right place from the bottom of the page. Viniciusmc, I see that this is present on a lot of talk pages, but not in any article at the moment. Can you point out some addition of this site to any page that is clearly abusive? It's definitely not a reliable source, but that's not enough reason to blacklist it. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    helium.com

    helium.com/content/whatishelium : Looks like another content farm (e.g. examiner.com) where users are paid on page views, anyone can contribute, there is no editorial oversight and whose content is essentially self-published. MER-C 03:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    allkpop.com & tokyohive.com

    I linked both sites as they're related. They're Asian pop news blog that basically translates news and gossip articles into English (allkpop is Korean, tokyohive is Japanese). it's just run by a small group of...staff, I guess, that just post translated news (with some "exclusives" once in a while). At best, it's questionable and/or biased due to possible translation issues (there's been controversy over their translations in the Korean media), and at worst it's just untrue (see this article they retracted). I tried my best to remove it under WP:RS, but it just gets re-inserted frequently due to the low number of English sources on Korean pop. If this can't or won't be blacklisted, can someone direct me as to where to go? Thanks in advance. SKS (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    rock-interviews.com

    Links to this website have been repeatedly added to multiple pages by many IPs. Some of the IPs can be seen by looking at the long list of IP talk pages in the {{linksummary}} link above. Perhaps this is not a clear case of spamming - the website may be of marginal utility/interest to the project because of its content, but I'm not that knowledgeable in this area to really know. But there is no doubt that there are IPs whose only contributions here are to repeatedly spam this link to multiple pages despite many warnings and XLinkBot reverts over the course of several months (see User talk:82.67.45.194, for example). Some of the IPs have been involved in cross-wiki spamming as well (see English, French or German, English). Deli nk (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to XLinkBot I'd say the content is useful for quotations from various musicians to use in their respective articles, but not terribly spammy. XLinkBot will allow addition of these links only be established editors. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    virtualflyguides.blogspot.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done for now. Looks like it was spammed by one user, who is indef blocked. No spamming activity since then. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    visionsofjoy.com

    visionsofjoy.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    This has been repeatedly added to Bates method and is a spam link for a related vision treatment. Here are the five most recent diffs: [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. It is also discussed 6 times in the talk page archives and on the current Talk:Bates method page. There are several SPA / spammer accounts that keep adding this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So looking at the Talk:Bates method archives, this spam link was discussed and removed in 2007, and discussed and removed again in Apirl 2008 and August 2008. The link was discussed as not being able to be added in May 2009 and was discussed and found to not meet WP:RS again June 2010. The Reliable SOurces noticeboard discussion is here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I protest this. First of all, the 2007 discussion appears to have been about whether visionsofjoy was appropriate to include in the External Links section, which is not the issue here. The other discussions linked by Ruhrfisch contain mixed opinions. WP:RS allows questionable sources to be used as sources of information about themselves. I would further note that it took a month for this request to be responded to. Could that be because others who looked at this weren't sure what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BremenTownMusician (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's because this page is constantly backlogged, and many admins are busy taking care of more immediate disruption over at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, etc.
    As to your protest: Including a link in an external links section is an issue here. The fact that this link was added repeatedly to an article for which it doesn't qualify as a WP:RS is grounds for blacklisting. As a not-reliable-source, there is no reason to state in any article what the source says about itself, except in an article about that source — and we have no Visions of Joy article where such a link would be appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    fluoridealert.org

    This website that fails WP:EL and is not a RS is often spammed by anti-fluoridation activists, commonly linked to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips. See also current ban discussion at AN/I. Also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freedom5000 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freedom5000

    I see that it is listed as blacklisted but it's still being spammed. Here's a recent one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403253233

    Here's an old discussion from then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Dec_1#fluoridealert.org_-_blacklisting_problem.3F

    It needs to be made effective and permanent.

    Brangifer (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done already. It is in the list and working. The recent example cited above was posted 19 December, and the entry was placed in the blacklist the following day. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    nobleherb.com

    Commercial site selling strange "herbal" products with zero information about how the products are supposed to work and what they actually contain. Several articles have been repeatedly spammed and it is extremely unlikely there will ever be a legit reason to link to this site. Richiez (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Another user, apparent sockpuppie and an IP continuing this work. Richiez (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From a separate request

    Continued sockpuppetry + spamming of site with no value to Wikipedia. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Combined two requests to blacklist the same URL into one. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This site has been blacklisted globally. MER-C 11:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - tagging section for completeness. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    bep-hiphop.blogspot.com

    Contains serious copyright violations, repeatedly spammed by the above user, and in any case it's a Blogspot blog. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. While I see no need for blogspot links to appear anywhere on Wikipedia either, that link doesn't appear in article space, the user hasn't returned since being blocked 24 hours on 1 January, and we typically don't need to expand the blacklist due to the activity from a single account; it's better just to indef block the user if the problem repeats. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also
    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#Blatant_self_promotion
    41.237.162.228 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Asside from Linking to copyrighted works, A closer look reviels there may be a case for meta listing. Seems there is quite a bit of multiple wiki spamming
     Defer to Global blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    iranBattery.ir

    Persistent spam until blocked, then hop to another IP. (My first report here. Please advise whether or not I should learn the procedure and add to blacklist myself) Materialscientist (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite minimal, but XWiki (see the upcoming m:User:COIBot/XWiki/iranbattery.com - as it is quite spammy, lets do it there... --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This site has been blacklisted globally. MER-C 09:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done per above--Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    earthwaterfireair.com

    earthwaterfireair.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Using roaming IPs to add links to videos.

    --Nlu (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Related
    99.130.184.10 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    99.73.187.54 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    99.130.197.30 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    99.73.186.254 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    99.130.181.72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    99.130.201.193 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Savrien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    99.130.189.49 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    • www.amazon.com/Zhao-An-Xin/e/B003YC08EE/
    Extensive, sneeky long term multi article spamming of related sites. plus Added 3--Hu12 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    hacktolive.org/wiki/Window_Clippings

    Links to illigal copy of Windows Clippings. And the zip file contains a keygen detected as malware by Norton SONAR --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Hu12 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    yiser.com

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 01:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    silahgalerisi.com

    silahgalerisi.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Repeat spam vandal who is willing to overstamp any existing links with his own coming in from multiple IPs...please see my removals:


    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He's right back. He evaded his block and spammed all of these articles this morning.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He was also reported with this at AIV adding another 23 spammings.
    85.100.79.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added. Thanks Berean Hunter--Hu12 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I owe you the thanks. :)
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    kenyanlyrics.com

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued, hence recycled. MER-C 12:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Proposed removals

    Completed Proposed removals

    Adversus

    adversus.it: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Adversus.it is a well established online magazine, there were several references to articles and interviews on Wikipedia before it appeared in the spamlist. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorry None (talk • contribs) 8 January 2011 (UTC)

     Defer to Global blacklist. Adversus.it is not blacklisted here. Looks like it was listed on the Meta blacklist for spamming the Italian Wikipedia 14 times in 5 days. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    biblewalks.com

    My site biblewalks.com was placed on the blacklist in 2007. Since then it has grown into one of the leading web site on Biblical places. One of our readers wrote today: "Hi, Do you have any idea why your site is blacklisted on Wikipedia? I have often tried to use it as a source for various articles, but I get a spam message and a blacklist notification. Perhaps you should write to Wikipedia and get this sorted out. You have a lot of very good information, and it's a pity it can't be used. Best, Gila" Please reconsider removing it from the blacklist. The site reviews over 270 biblical places in the Holy Land and has over 5,000 original photos. Biblewalks (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • We do not generally remove sites from the blacklist at the request of the site owner. Instead, blacklisting is undone when trusted, high-volume users request it in order to use the links on a page where they'll improve Wikipedia. If such a user makes such a request in the future, I am sure it will be considered carefully. This request, however, is  Denied. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This restriction makes no sense. BibleWalks is a very useful, informative, professional website containing firsthand, high-quality, original photos & textual content. I currently have a link on a page I created several years ago for Khirbet Sharta because there were (and as far as I know still are) no other sources available. Tonight when I attempted to add an external link to another page I made major contributions to several years ago for Ketef Hinnom, it was blocked. Jerusalem is a densely populated area, & this site provides firsthand photos of a major compass point for the KH excavations--a landmark church. There are many other sites pertaining to the Bible on Wikipedia that would benefit readers if links to BibleWalks were allowed. It is not a spam site. Please consider removing it from blacklist status.--Funhistory (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 6 accounts have done nothing but add this external link to articles. That fact alone shows that the link needed to be blacklisted in the first place. Since one of the most blatant abusers of this link has just requested it to be taken off the blacklist, spamming of this link would likely resume if this was done. If you have any particular cases where you either need the link for referencing (and it meets our criteria for reliable sources) or need it for an external link (if it meets our external link guidelines, you can request whitelisting a particular link for use in a particular article. That can be done on this page. ThemFromSpace 03:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wholsale removal of the domain would not be in the best interest of the project. As demonstrated here, Biblewalks only contributions are to promote his own adgenda, not wikipedias. Clearly the likelyhood of continued abuse and disruption is present. I agree with the other admins in that if a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor, can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a reliable and verifyable source.no Declined X3--Hu12 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    niralimagazine.com

    niralimagazine.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Last year I requested that this site be blacklisted because of malware. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2009#niralimagazine.com. The site has now been repaired. An article on the site is used as a source for Navi Rawat. Will Beback talk 03:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're a sysop, do it yourself, eh? :) (Are you satisfied it's fully back in order?) Stifle (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gee, I never tried that before. I found it and removed it. Thanks for the tip. Will Beback talk 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    caymac.com

    i humbly request that the above website be removed from the blacklist because it is not malicious. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.214.184 (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For those reasons and previous ones, I'll mark this as no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    pulau-pangkor.com

    pulau-pangkor.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    I would ask to remove this site from the blacklist.

    Reason for removal is that, in my humble believe this is one of the most extensive and informative sites about Pangkor island on the west coast of Malaysia. The site talks not only about the usual tourist stuff as hotels, transport etc. but tries to place Pangkor in context of Malaysia's history. The further relevance, again in my opinion is that it gives decent information about the surrounding area with Lumut (having the ferry to Pangkor) as focal point.

    I am not sure why it was in the first place blacklisted but I am quite sure it was not based on the content of the site. Please remove from your blacklist. Thank you very much

    Personally I would add this site as reference to your Pangkor article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangkor

    With regards, Peter from Pangkor Island

    • This was blacklisted on meta for spamming, see [10]; removal can be requested there. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FilmIndustryNetwork.biz

    filmindustrynetwork.biz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    I have received a message from Knox387 who is currently writing a page for Wikipedia that Filmindustrynetwork.biz appears to be on the Wikipedia spam blacklist. I am currently doing research to find out why this was caused and whether someone used the filmindustrynetwork.biz domain to spam a certain page. I have not found anything so far. Filmindustrynetwork.biz is a respectable website with five journalists (www.filmindustrynetwork.biz/staff) and several contributors. Everything needs to be pre-approved by the editor in chief. I hope to find a solution to get the site delisted from the black list. (Gordonhx3 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    What is your association with filmindustrynetwork.biz?
    Generally we don't remove remove sites from the blacklist at the request a new account (like yours) created for the purpose of requesting removal. If a trusted, high-volume user requests removal for the purpose of using the links on a page where they'll improve Wikipedia, then we consider it.
    As to the reason for blacklisting: filmindustrynetworks.biz and onefatcigar.com were added to the blacklist on 16 June 2010 due to spamming by multiple single purpose accounts, all of whom are blocked indefinitely:
    Furthermore, the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloginity suggests that filmindustrynetworks.biz is not an acceptable source (at least for that article).
    Given the information above, this request is  Denied. I would  Defer to Whitelist for specific links after discussion on WP:RSN agrees that the links are acceptable reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Amatulić , Thanks for your excellent and detailed feedback on this issue. I am the editor in Chief for Film Industry Network. In regards to Onefatcigar.com I found a press release in our archives from 2010 [1] but was not aware that any page had been created to promote this release as we are monitoring google alerts. The OneFatCigar webmaster in this case has used blackhat spam methods on wikipedia using our domain and their domain which causes our website to be on this blacklist. Film Industry Network does not create links on Wikipedia for commercial gain. In fact, this is exactly the kind of thing that makes us want to contribute further and help Wikipedia have accurate information. Articles published on Film Industry Network are never promoted on Wikipedia and these user names should be permanently banned for using our name. However the filmindustrynetwork.biz domain should not be banned, as Knox387, for example, was having trouble qualifying a source. In regards to improving Wikipedia, we choose to interview people in the entertainment industry that inspire others and always try to provide an educational benefit to the reader. If users choose to put filmindustrynetwork.biz links to show that we recognize them, this should not be a reason for it being blacklisted. In terms of trust, this user was created to find out why the site had been blacklisted because there are many people who benefit from our educational resources and interviews and want to link to us. If our intentions were promotional, this account would be used to create a page for filmindustrynetwork.biz. This is not the case, nor has one ever been created. (Gordonhx3 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
    "If our intentions were promotional, this account would be used to create a page for filmindustrynetwork.biz."
    One can hardly make a convincing argument that because your account hasn't "created a page for filmindustrynetwork.biz", your intentions aren't promotional. The very nature of this request is to promote your own outside interests (filmindustrynetwork.biz) over the interests of Wikipedia.
    "this user was created to find out why the site had been blacklisted "
    Now having a better understanding of the circumstance why your site has been blacklisted, I think we can close this request. As stated previously and for further clarification, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to "editor in Chiefs'", "employees" or "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 blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed. closing as  Not done.--Hu12 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    dyingscene.com

    dyingscene.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com This is a punk news site that constantly contains relevant and up-to-date information that can be used to reference many wikipedia pages. According to the log, the site was blacklisted in 2009 but no reason was provided in the log. Brightknees (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason provided in the log is "repeat spamming of NN zine", and it was spammed by a "role account" associated with the webpage in question; see blacklist addition, logging, edits by the spamming username, and especially this previous removal discussion. I'll let others decide if there's a reason to remove this from the blacklist, but it would be helpful to provide the names of specific pages that could be improved by a link to this site. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cobra Skulls - Music style would be improved by adding a link an interview the site did with the band. [2]. Here the information about the bands music style is more detailed.

    The Flatliners did an extensive interview with this particular site which could be used to expand their Wiki page dramatically [3]

    Trial & Error Records also did an interview with the site which would expand their wiki page with more information about the actual label and it's history. [4]

    Descendents member, Karl confirmed that the band would continue to make music and tour after almost ten years of being on hiatus [5]

    Fletcher Dragge of Pennywise (band) also went into detail about the departure of the bands front man, Jim Lindberg.[6] Brightknees (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RE: Comment below Blacklister -- This is an old wikipedia account that I've only started using again. Apologies, I couldn't find reasons in the log. I only requested removal from blacklist to while attempting to update the Cobra Skulls page. The addition to the proposed removals was not intended to be suspicious. I cannot talk for the site in question but the punk community isn't as large as that of other music genres so wouldn't it be of use to gather as much information for pages as possible? I saw an interview with the owner of Anchorless Records on the site which could be used in conjunction with other sites, to make a whole new informative page on that particular label as it doesn't currently exist. There is even a new release mentioned in the interview that had not been announced elsewhere at the time.[7].

    In regard to the argument, 'I highly doubt that any non-notable music blogs gets a scoop that isn't available anywhere else', how are the above not exclusive? All were provided to said site directly from the band or label therefore making it the most reputable source. The references are all original sources that any 'notable' music blog would have to reference to should they mention any of the information on their own site. Note the music style of the Cobra Skulls in particular. That information is straight from the band member as are all referenced articles. By Wikipedia standards, what level of readership constitutes a 'notable' music blog? I can find the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines that relates to the artists & composers but not for those reporting on it. Brightknees (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:WEB deals with website notability. Given the past spam campaigns involving this site, blacklisting is inappropriate. Whitelisting may be appropriate for individual cases, but would only be considered if that information was available elsewhere. Further, do you have any WP:COI involving this site (i.e., are you affiliated with it in any way?) OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Notes Regarding a few of the examples above: (1) The Descendents official site makes it clear they are still touring. (2) Pennywise's official site elaborates on the effects of Lindberg's departure sufficiently.]. Etc., etc. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not affiliated, I just like a good argument. After going back through the links other Wiki Editors provided, in this previous removal discussion there was no final resolution on a solid argument by the owner. "Given the past spam campaigns involving this site, blacklisting removal is inappropriate. Whitelisting may be appropriate for individual cases, but would only be considered if that information was not available elsewhere", this makes no sense. Blacklisting is inappropriate due to spam, an issue resolved in the linked discussion by the owner but whitelisting is appropriate if the information is available elsewhere. If the information came from another source, why would it be linked to this site in the first place?

    That Descendents story was linked to many other places on the internet, and how I found the site in the first place. At the time of publication, the band weren't touring, nor was there any information available that would lead you to the assumption that they were.Brightknees (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I made two mistakes in that paragraph (see corrections in bold above). In any case  Not done because (1) a "trusted, high-volume editor" is not making the request (2) the site was abusively spammed in the past and (3) there's no solid evidence that blacklisting it is harming the project, as most if not all of usable info is available elsewhere (i.e., official channels. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Numia

    numia.biz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Numia.biz is one of the best free online accounting software. The website has been blocked by wiki for the purpose of posting an article about numia on wiki. Some hackers had used numia.biz to edit wiki pages purely for the sake of moving numia to wiki spamlist. Kindly consider removing numia.biz from the wiki spam blacklist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.165.222.92 (talk • contribs)

    no Declined. Being "one of the best" is irrelevant; it has to meet WP:N criteria. Your assertion about why numia.biz was blacklisted would be more credible if it came from a trusted, high-volume editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    goo.gl

    goo.gl: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Google link shortener, now used automatically by google maps/books/news. Not sure what it was before that caused it to be blocked. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't blacklisted locally, it's done on the global meta blacklist at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist that applies to all mediawiki sites. There's a long-standing policy of blocking all url shortening sites as they have proven repeatedly to be abused by those who use them to bypass legitimate blacklistings. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Denied, use the full URL instead please. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, how do I do that when (if you read what I posted) google is automatically creating urls using this service now in Google Maps, Google Books, Google News, and anything else where you click "link" to get a url.
    Also, only google links can be shortened with it, not url's in general. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The former, maybe it is a setting somewhere? It must be something like that, since I do not get the auto-shortening (link just gave me http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=duitsland&aq=&sll=51.44102,5.524515&sspn=0.009055,0.01929&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Germany&t=h&z=6) ...
    Well, that does not make much of a difference, parts of google.com are also blacklisted as they can be abused - but also, you may see that goo.gl/hBFpB is actually a redirect to Wikipedia's mainpage, so it does not only google.com links.
    Sorry, redirect sites of any form are not to be used. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The goo.gl domain is most certainly a general-use URL shortener, which can be seen by going to the main webpage. I entered the full URL for this thread, and it provided goo.gl/IBfaf - which can be used now to link directly to this discussion.
    I also attempted to generate a link at both Google maps and Google books - and in both cases it provided the full URL, not a goo.gl version ... so there must be a setting someplace that you've set in your google account that is causing that. --- Barek (talk) - 17:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    anusthanokarehasya.com

    anusthanokarehasya.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com This website contains all the information regarding Dus Mahavidyas. This website was only added to the pages which belongs to Hinduism and their deities. This website contains very good information on Bagalamukhi and all the other mahavidyas and must be included at least in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.96.240 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist. If a trusted, high-volume editor makes a de-listing request, it might be considered more seriously. For now, specific pages can be whitelisted as needed, but I'd be wary event of that, considering that my Peerblock installation here tags that site as "Malware". Also, the relevant information on it doesn't appear to be in English. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, spamming of this domain continues with redirect sites. MER-C 13:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    songsofthebeatles.com

    This is a web site that gives detailed information about the Beatles band that does not exist on Wiki. So it is good to give that information via entering the external link to one or at most 3-4 WIKI pages. I entered the link to the page about "Lists of the Beatles" and in a few songs that it was erased, thinking that I made some typos and therefore entered it again. So this type of behavior is regarded as "spam". If this link can be delisted, I can assure you that I won't be abusing at all. Sorry, my mistake.

    Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.46.174 (talk • contribs)

    Adsense pub-6232557366897383
    Ngawethuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    95.173.7.24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    95.173.4.123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    85.97.40.84 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    85.101.219.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    217.174.46.174 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    95.173.22.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    95.173.18.185 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. additionaly it seems to be an Adsense scrapper site which appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Troubleshooting and problems

    Comment by blacklister A reasons was given in the log; repeat spamming of NN zine. It was spammed by more than one role account. I'm strongly against removing it from the blacklist based on this, and I highly doubt that a non-notable music blog gets any exclusive scoops not available on other sites. If such a situation did exist, it would be more appropriate to whitelist for individual cases. Furthermore, I can't help to be suspicious of a freshly created account requesting a blacklisting removal so quickly. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hellwars.com

    Hello. I'm wondering why was website with URL stated above blacklisted? I'm a player of this MMORPG and I would like to create a Wiki article, it took me hours to write everything, and now when I wanted to save the page and ask for feedback, I can't, since it says this URL has been blacklisted. Could I get some help regarding this, because I don't really see how this site could break any rules :/ Thanks. ClammieR (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It was blacklisted globally at Meta, not here, which suggests that it was spammed heavily on multiple wikis. Before you bother petitioning there, ask yourself if the site would meet our WP:WEB policy (which I personally doubt it will) before you spend any more time on it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, I see. Didn't know that. But I'm wondering how can torrent sites or similar games to this be on Wikipedia, while this one can't. I'll be reading more about your policy & Meta stuff tomorrow, but I don't get it why you have double standards for similar or even worse websites. Could it be because mabye nobody reported other sites or they weren't checked for abusive behaviour or something similar? Thanks for fast reply by they way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClammieR (talk • contribs) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The normal action if you see an unblacklisted site that is similar to a blacklisted site is to blacklist the former site, not remove the latter. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instr

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins


    Quick reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion

    COIBot - LinkSaver

    I am working on a rewrite of the part of COIBot that saves the link-reports on wiki. My main goals there are to make it more normally coded, so that the different types of reports ('LinkReport','Local','XWiki') all are looking alike, and that the data is re-used for the different reports on the different wikis.

    The format on-wiki has significantly changed, the old LinkReports give more info about the users and the links, and the data is now handled by templates (User:COIBot/EditSummary and User:COIBot/OtherLinks (the latter embedded in the former)). COIBot at the moment passes all data into the parameters (note: some are likely to disappear to save space, others will come up when I have them available; feel free to edit the templates; use the fields that are there, but try to use the most basic ones (e.g., construct a diff-url from 'wiki','revid' and 'oldid', do not use 'diffurl'), I'm sure the readability can be improved (note, I will add a start and end template around it, which can be used to modify the data further). Also a lot of the rest of the text can be changed by changing settings here or on meta (I am still working on that). If you find anything in the new reports that you think would be nice to have, which is wrong (just found one, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/globolstaff.com -> the bot should convert domains to lowercase; solved), or other suggestions there, please poke me.

    As I said, I wanted to format it so that the data is exchangeable between the different reports and different wikis. That had as the nice advantage, that any report can be saved 'locally'. For en.wikipedia, that means that the en.wikipedia part of the tree of local reports (see m:Category:COIBot Local Reports can also be saved on en.wikipedia (and with a slight change of settings, also on ... vi.wikiquote.org, but lets first do en.wikipedia only). Those reports are now available in Category:Local COIBot Reports.

    The working of the reports is the same as on meta (the XWiki reports). When handling a request, change the status in the 'LinkStatusLocal' template, which is located at the bottom. Normally it will be 'open', change it to 'close' (if handled or cleaned, or not a problem anymore), 'ignore' (if it is likely to return, but it is fine). The state 'stale' can be used, but that is a state that COIBot will put reports in itself when it notices that activity has ceased (e.g. no new link additions for 1 week) or other reasons. 'Close'd and 'Stale' reports will be reopened by COIBot when the bots see that the 'suspect' activity resumes, 'ignore'd reports will stay ignored, though they may receive new data every now and then.

    When commenting, do that in the report, at the very bottom of the discussion section, after the tag that says so (everything in front of that tag will be overwritten upon regeneration). Note: I will ask User:Erwin to see if he can add the 'add' gadget which is available on meta also here, with the option of also having it work for XLinkBot.

    Things that I am working on to add:

    • Reinstate the 'check top edit if the link is still there'.
    • Improved autostale (e.g., if there are no links left anymore, then the report can go stale, no urgency).
    • Have a good think about the link between the different wikis. At the moment, reports exist on meta and here .. I'm not sure yet what should be done if we close a report here with the sister-report on meta, or vice versa.

    Note, these are 'auto caught' links. The linkwatchers (m:User:LiWa3 do their basic statistics like counting how often an editor uses a certain domain, and compares that with other counts on the user and the domain. When it passes certain thresholds, it reports. Note, the reports only show that a certain link is used in a suspect way, it is, by no means, a sign that the link is bad, or that the editor is doing something bad. It may be a new, unexperienced user, who nonetheless has found a unique domain and uses that domain mainly, while no-one else yet does. Please be careful with analysis of these reports, apply a good dose of WP:AGF.

    Enjoy the new reports! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ebay Addresses

    As we know users who upload photo images to WP-Commons are required to provide source information in the file's summary. ... (Snip!) Using Ebay item template. -- Issued resolved. GWillHickers (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    I was wondering, is the spam blacklist for users or websites? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:44pm • 11:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    Websites. SmartSE (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ok, thanks :) Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 12:06pm • 01:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam blacklist doesn't catch URLs not starting http?

    With reference to this diff, it would seem that it's possible to make an edit to a page where a citation contains |url=www.blacklistedsite.com, but not |url=http://www.blacklistedsite.com i.e. where http:// is added. This doesn't seem right to me? Thanks Rjwilmsi 14:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In this case, it was not a link but a plaintext url: [11]. –xenotalk 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but a slight loophole maybe? Rjwilmsi 12:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. But working as intended I think, blacklisted URLs have always been able to be communicated in plaintext. –xenotalk 12:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the user is spamming/pushing a non-working link then that is a form of blacklist evasion which would warrant an immediate block (and editors did get indeffed for that; these fall in the same category as spammers who use a redirect service to get their link in anyway). If it is good faith use, revert the edit, and leave the editor a remark (and point to the whitelist, if necessary). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Spider-Man

    On Spider-Man article it says that Spider-Man is one of the most popular and successfull commercial superheroes with a citation needed tag. Hubpages.com had a Top ten most famous comic/cartoon characters stating this making it a good source but it's on the blacklist even though it's not spam. − Jhenderson 777 20:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hubpages.com:
    Delisting is no Declined. If you have a particular "hub" in mind, consider requesting a whitelisting. MER-C 11:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to see if I can find another source stating this. The thing is this page seemed decent. It's not a page you edit or anything like that. But's still, that's ok. − Jhenderson 777 18:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be good information there, but we are not going to de-list the whole domain for that. You can request the specific url to be whitelisted here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, which will enable you to use only that one link as a reference (when granted). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then. Thanks for the help. − Jhenderson 777 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ip address URLs

    I have often wondered why we allow pure IP addresses to be linked to, its one of the easiest ways to bypass the SBL, and it also means that these links break often, and are unable to be corrected due to now knowing the previous host name. Any random thoughts? ΔT The only constant 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello???? any one notice this section? ΔT The only constant 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of a good reason to allow IP address links off the top of my head. I don't think the regex to do it would be too difficult. Anyone else? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did notice, Δ, and I think the answer is that IP address links might be useful outside of mainspace. I agree that they are surely not wanted in mainspace, and outside of mainspace they need not be linked. However, blacklisting such a wide class of links probably needs broad consensus, or at least a willingness to turn the blacklisting off if there are complaints. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, the regex would be
    \b\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\b — although this will also match impossible address like 666.777.888.999. It's probably good enough, although if you really want to match the legal ranges 0-255.0-255.0-255.0-255 you'd need a complicated expression:
    \b(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\b - yech! ~Amatulić (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Preview

    So why doesn't Wikipedia flag the site on an edit preview? Discouraging to spend time trying to make sure your edit is good and then have it pink box you when you go to save. Gerardw (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just guessing, but checking the blacklist would be a fairly intense operation for the server, and a good editor might preview several times, and blacklisted links occur very rarely, and a link may be blacklisted while you are previewing, so the check has to occur at save anyway. However, the place to ask this question is at WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Automatic archiving

    Due to the format of this this page and how we archive, most archive bots cannot function here. However I just took a few minutes and wrote a custom script that should do it for us. It makes one change to convert {{LinkSummaryLive}} to {{LinkSummary}} in order to bypass any spam filter issues. (I may need to adjust it some more). There are two variables that can be configured: stale conversations, and ones tagged with templates indicating defer/done/not done ect. Right now my thoughts would be to set stale conversations to 30 days, and those tagged to 15. Thoughts? ΔT The only constant 05:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To keep this page clear, I'd like to see automated archiving - though I also like the thing we do on the whitelist: we have the open requests, which get either granted or denied, they then get moved to an appropriate section (IMHO, that could be after 24 hours), and later archived (which would be nice after say, 1-2 weeks, bit depending on size). At least they are then quick out of the 'open' area, which makes it easier to focus on what needs 'quick' attention, while still having the posts handy for some time if the problem expands to other areas, or if there are quick de-listing requests.
    I would also suggest that both 'live' links get converted (and the {{LinkSummaryLive}} converted to {{LinkSummary}}) when moving the requests.
    All in all, yes, please! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to create the the new sections I can tweak the code. I would request that each "section" retain the primary '=' section level, so that we are not mixing section levels, but it would be trivial to adjust my archive code. Just let me know the time periods, and I could have the code operational in less than 24 hours, and then would go ahead with the BRFA process. ΔT The only constant 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To the original question ... what is the bot name? Has it already been approved, or is it pending approval? For time duration, I think we can start it with 45 days stale, and tighten it up later if needed. I would prefer to have longer than needed as the starting point and adjust down, rather than too short and adjusting up. My only other concern is ensuring there's an easy to access emergency off switch (possibly linked from the header for this page). --- Barek (talk) - 18:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not filed for approval yet, I wanted to flush the idea out, find issues, get those addressed, before ever going to the BRFA process. As for the shutoff, that should be trivial, just a matter of configuring a wiki page. ΔT The only constant 18:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible malware

    There's a question at RSN about a possible malware site. Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Please_check_the_source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ran the url through a few malware/threat detectors, seems its ok.
    Here are a few scanner tools that could be usefull.
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ http://www.filmindustrynetwork.biz/work-with-pursuit-of-happyness-director-gabriele-muccino/2835
    2. ^ http://dyingscene.com/news/ds-exclusive-devin-peralta-cobra-skulls-gives-ds-some-insight-into-the-band-politics-in-music-the-use-of-language-and-not-singing-about-cobras/?
    3. ^ http://dyingscene.com/news/ds-exclusive-interview-the-flatliners-dying-scene-sessions/
    4. ^ http://dyingscene.com/news/label-spotlight-ds-catches-up-with-diy-hardcore-label-trial-and-error-records/
    5. ^ http://dyingscene.com/news/ds-exclusive-interview-karl-alvarez-descendents-talks-hyphens-mortality-middle-age-and-the-reunification-of-the-rock-nation/
    6. ^ http://dyingscene.com/news/interview-fletcher-holds-nothing-back-on-lindberg-the-alesana-brawl-a-new-album-and-the-future-of-pennywise/
    7. ^ http://dyingscene.com/news/label-spotlight-anchorless-records/
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=413840288"