Jump to content

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
Line 258: Line 258:
==statsheet.com and associated sites==
==statsheet.com and associated sites==


*{{Link summary|}}
*{{Link summary|statsheet.com}}
*{{UserSummary|TaylorMitchell21}}
*{{UserSummary|TaylorMitchell21}}


I have no idea how this went on so long without being noticed, but this user has been spamming links to a network of sites (e.g. terpsball.com, hooreview.com) for two months. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea how this went on so long without being noticed, but this user has been spamming links to a network of sites (e.g. terpsball.com, hooreview.com) for two months. There are a whole slew of domain names.--[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


=Completed Proposed additions=
=Completed Proposed additions=

Revision as of 19:57, 1 March 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 regular expressions — 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 – 416607388 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    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]
     Done for Hidden Wiki. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 22 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]

    ""What is Helium? Write. Get Published. Get Paid"" . Helium.com links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Offers Affiliate Programs / affiliate earnings
    • Offers its Affiliates financial incentives to Link / increase page views
    ""At Helium, we believe that everyone can contribute what they know to share with millions of readers around the globe.""
    ""Helium’s publishing partners in Marketplace are paying $20 to $200 for selected articles right now. "
    ""Helium’s best writers earn cash through ..Upfront Payments for contributed work ..Daily revenue share ..
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    I would tend to agree also.--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Further investigation shows in addition to failing Wikipedia's core content policies, clear, Long term abuse has been demonstrated;
    Helium.com links Also fail
    There are more than 600 links currently. I sugesst a cleanup of these links begin, prior to any blacklisting.--Hu12 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Groan)... Isn't there a bot that can do this? I just went through the last 120 links on LinkSearch, and removed links from 47 articles. Slightly more than 50% of the Linksearch results were in archives, talk pages, user space, etc. and I left those alone. I left Helium.com alone as well as a bio in which the subject has his own space on helium.com. 500 more links to go through.... isn't there a bot? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Δ/Sandbox 4 is the list you where looking for. ΔT The only constant 19:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant, is there a bot that can remove these links, or at least some sort of automated tool? I've made a big dent in that list, by the way. The first 235 links on linksearch still need checking. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. I think cleaned them all up, except for a handful of articles that seem to have a legitimate use for some helium.com links; those can be added to the whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    advocatekhoj.com

    Well over one hundred links to this site - apparently a legal portal that charges lawyers for referrals - have been added as "references" is recent weeks, by a series of IPs in the 123.201.*.* range. The IPs have also been replacing existing ref links with this URL. It appears to be spam, just thought I'd get a second opinion before removing them and blacklisting. --Ckatzchatspy 08:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: this thread was blanked [10] by 123.201.77.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems clear it's a spam issue, as I'm now seeing SPA accounts reverting/adding the links. I've added it to the blacklist and will continue cleaning it up later this evening. --Ckatzchatspy 06:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    careerkey.org

    The following account is a single use account used by the Vice President of Career Key to promote the company, see her talk page for details -

    For the record, other related domains which have not been spammed on English Wikipedia are :

    • careerkey.biz
    • morshed.org
    • vcpkorea.com
    • choicesmagazine.com
    • choicesonlinejm.com
    • careerkey-ca.org

    -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been Blocked as a Spam / advertising-only account. Marking this as  Not done. If new accounts, or spamming continue, please re-report. --Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    scribd.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 noticed Hu12 added a bunch of scribd.com links (one entry with some wildcards would have been sufficient; why all those?). I'm wondering, since scribd content consists (as far as I can tell) of original work posted by users or copies of copyrighted material, if anything on scribd would qualify as a WP:RS. If Hu12's additions are any indication, this blacklist could swell disproportionately with scribd links. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems scribd links are formatted in some form of unique document number (...scribd.com/doc/10935894/...), not by user name or ID. Those links are apart of one persistant spammers collection of spamlinks. Typical, Spamming, subverting the blacklist, vandalism ect type case. The log has a link to the case. I would agree, Amatulić, as to scribd... its a "honey pot" for WP:OR, WP:COPYRIGHT vios, and most things unreliable...perhaps this might be a candidate for a perminant block?--Hu12 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'd support general blacklisting with support for whitelisting documents deemed acceptable. A lot of POV pushers have used scribd documents as a way to imply that a real scholarly paper has been published on something when in fact scribd has no editorial function. They have also been used to store copyright violations, as noted in the scribd article. Also, while not a reason for blacklisting, it's true that a lot of well-meaning editors have used scribd for sourcing simply because it looks like a reliable source, even though it generally isn't. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One wouldn't need to blacklist the whole domain either, just \bscribd.com/doc/\b. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Found an old discussion supporting the same thing (note; the load time is long). Any way, there are currently over 7000 links of scribd on wikipedia. cleanup will need to be done first, otherwise we risk significant disruption. I think I recall someone was making a bot that could remove links, cant remember who. Seems there's quite a few sub-sections;
    • scribd.com/group/
    • scribd.com/share/
    • scribd.com/groups/
    • scribd.com/feeds/
    • scribd.com/explore/
    • scribd.com/community/
    • scribd.com/store/
    • scribd.com/webstuff/
    • scribd.com/upload/
    • scribd.com/partners
    • scribd.com/people/
    • scribd.com/mobile/
    • scribd.com/full/
    • blog.scribd.com/
    • scribd.com/collections/
    • scribd.com/press
    Authors pages are located in the root.. scribd.com/LauraNovak..--Hu12 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority (5000+ links) are for scribd.com/doc/*. We could chip away at the most obvious ones first, such as scribd.com/(store|group|groups|community) and blog.scribd.com. I also see a few scribd links that match a familiar Wikipedia username.... looks like somebody trying to create their own article references. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've revertlisted scribd.com on XLinkBot, which might help to keep mainspace a bit clean. Seen this post, I would support blacklisting this. Note, we do not need to clean before blacklisting (pages with the link will still save), as long as they go ASAP afterwards. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "We do not need to clean before blacklisting". We don't? How does that work? And would this explain why I'm able to save blacklisted links in the helium.com article? Just curious how this works; I'm fairly new to working on this list. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    siggysoft.org

    siggysoft.org: 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 link was firstly added to the article email, but after an invastigation the site seem to be a content mapper/rewriter of wikipedia artciles. mabdul 15:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    classicalm.com

    classicalm.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 commercial site which sells CDs and has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, had been repeatedly spammed by:

    82.117.252.87 (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)

    Many more pages have been spammed than currently shows as editors have reverted the additions multiple times. The IP's talk page currently has multiple warnings, including a final warning concerning this and continued to spam, e.g. [19]. IP now temporarily blocked for 24 hours, but will no doubt to continue to add this link once unblocked or he shifts to another IP. This has been going on for months – Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    pregnancy.wisertogether.com

    Hmm ..

    Mainly the abovementioned subdomain:

    And the above IP. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    cn.zs.yahoo.com

    This link recently came up at the Help Desk[20] and was removed.[21] Also, in July 2007, a similar link was removed as "Dangerous link - Drive-by-drive download so we want to get rid of that link for security reasons?"[22] Linksummary above may have other examples. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    joshuaproject.net

    This website is blacklisted at w:de since 2011, see w:de:SBL#joshuaproject.net (German). ATM there are more than 700 links in w:en.
    I blacklisted that page at w:de, because Joshua Project seems to be an aggressive converting organisation. One of their main questions is "Which people groups still need an initial church-planting movement in their midst"[23]. Of course they have got a great database on languages and peoples. But apart from that at every language page the pov-information about the "progress" (which is the amount of christians) is given and additionally whether some jesus film is available in that language.
    The interesting part of the website's content is collected from Ethnologue and LinguistList. A blacklisting would not hide information for it is available at these projects. -- seth (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    kavkazcenter.com

    This is a "radical islamic website" providing disinformation about the cacasus region/world. I've also made a request here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kavkaz_Center_.28everyone_can_help.21.29 to get other opinions/experience with this page. Please take a look, thanks in advance! --84.168.101.210 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    supportdock.com

    Svarya (talk · contribs) has been adding spam links to this site to various articles despite multiple requests to stop doing so. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Spammed related,
    Article Spam
    IYogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Accounts
    Svarya (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)
    Alenaross07 (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)
    Roskey44 (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)
    Manish-iyogi (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)
    Diyogi (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)
    Devi.rathore (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)
    Sudhir nyc (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)
    125.19.48.38 (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)
    supportdock.com/iyogi.html. Seems a multi account/IP Spam effort by this company.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    statsheet.com and associated sites

    I have no idea how this went on so long without being noticed, but this user has been spamming links to a network of sites (e.g. terpsball.com, hooreview.com) for two months. There are a whole slew of domain names.--B (talk) 19:54, 1 March 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]
    Accounts
    Rock-interviews (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)
    89.156.103.172 (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)
    89.156.101.13 (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)
    78.226.212.140 (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)
    213.245.238.137 (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)
    62.147.148.61 (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)
    82.67.45.194 (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)
    213.245.238.55 (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)
    89.156.100.191 (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)
    193.34.100.34 (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)
    213.245.238.81 (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)
    89.156.101.100 (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)
    213.245.238.150 (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)
    cross wiki
    fr:Special:Contributions/62.147.148.61
    fr:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.137
    fr:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.81
    fr:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.55
    fr:Special:Contributions/82.67.45.194
    fr:Special:Contributions/193.34.100.34
    it:Special:Contributions/89.156.100.131
    fr:Special:Contributions/82.67.45.194
    fr:Special:Contributions/89.156.103.172
    fr:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.150
    de:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.150
    es:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.150
    es:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.150
    nl:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.150
    fr:Special:Contributions/89.156.101.13
    sv:Special:Contributions/89.156.101.13
    de:Special:Contributions/89.156.101.13
    it:Special:Contributions/89.156.100.131
    de:Special:Contributions/89.156.100.131
    --Hu12 (talk) 16:14, 14 February 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: [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28]. 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]
    plus Added @ Meta--Hu12 (talk) 15:34, 14 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]

    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]

    datingsites247.com

    Affiliate sites linked from blacklisted domain datingsites247.com. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 09:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added by Beetstra. MER-C 09:45, 14 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]

    Both are ownd by 6Theory Media and allkpop.com has aprox 267 links the other has 39 or so. I'd first see what they say @ the Reliable sources Noticeboard and / or External links Noticeboard. We can then consider  Defer to XLinkBot. Last resort, in a case like this, would be blackliting, but evidence of abuse and spamming would need to be shown. --Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    absolutechinatours.com

    Top up request, 221.12.4.82 (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) has continued spamming since blacklisting 2.5 years ago and a 1 year block. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    sunbizar-technologies.com

    Vandalistic SEO spamming. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Hu12 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    halalmarkets.net

    halalmarkets.net: 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

    see contributions. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that user Aekimex (talk · contribs) has been blocked, with an expiry time of indefinite. Since there is little evidence that this is anything other than an isolated, single account incident, I'll mark this as  Not done for now. However if this issue re surfaces, please feel free to re-report. Thanks Gƒoley.--Hu12 (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay; my first Spam-blacklist request. :-) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    ehow.com

    I am requesting that eHow be unblocked because I edited Monterey Bay Aquarium and came upon the message that it was blocked. I am working hard to promote it to GA status. Also, if information is added to an article that regards how to do a task, I would certainly use this link to cite such info. Thank you. Bulldog73 (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC) ehow.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[reply]

    Ehow.com is a content farm to whom anyone can contribute, which pays its writers based on page views ([32]), exercises little editorial oversight and whose content is essentially self-published. See also [33]. If you really want to use a specific link for the article, then  Defer to Whitelist. MER-C 09:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    google.com/cse?

    I do not know why these are blocked, so in all honesty I can't tell you why this one should be unblocked. It seems perfectly harmless to me. Speaking as a newbie to the Spam apparatus here, I can say with some authority that it is set up in an unnecessarily arcane and uninformative manner. The current blocked list is nowhere in sight, and yet users are supposed to check the list to see whether it is a Meta block or a local block. So I am putting this up on both. Surely software can determine this for users. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC) google.com/cse?: 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[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist It's in the global blacklist. Please see meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#google.com/cse?. Jafeluv (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    fractalcompression.co.cc

    The site is on the black list, but it is devoted to fractal image compression and shoud be allowed to add the link in the corresponding section. fractalcompression.co.cc: 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 — 92.243.99.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Unfortunatly Blogs fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy. Not done--Hu12 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add that this site isn't specifically listed here or on meta. However, all of *.co.cc is blacklisted here, so if you want to list a specific page, please request it at the whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are valid uses for blogs, both as references at external links. I am prepared to selectively whitelist any site being blocked merely for that reason unless there is some other problem, unless someone can show me a reason that does not contradict our actual policy at {{WP:EXTERNAL]], which says they are normally to be avoided, but with exceptions--it specifies we have include external links to blogs by recognized authorities--we also have links to blogs if the blog is the subject of the article, or if it is in practice the official site of the subject of an article, & I could probably think of a few dozen justifications. Merely being a blog is no reason for a site to be blacklisted. Additionally, co.,cc is a site offering paid and free domain registration/ Undoubtedly some of the sites on it may be bad, but I do not consider this as necessarily a reason for the entire range of their sites to me blocked. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    movies.bollysite.com

    Again, your call, but a reasonable rationale for completely blocking an index of Indian film professionals would be appreciated. Anarchangel (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC) movies.bollysite.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[reply]

    Blacklisted in 2007 as part of a large group of Bollywood-related spam. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct#Bollywood spam. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, links to this site, "Search Indian Cinema", are Link normally to be avoided and do fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy. Not done--Hu12 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    r.fm

    Underground Evolved home page. Imo that article was improperly deleted because of the link blockage; the site and thus the organization was believed to be defunct at the 2nd AfD. Very professional-looking multimedia page. I don't know much about spam, but got no alerts from Comodo Firewall. r.fm: 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 February 2011

    First the article mentioned no longer exists. Second it failed 2 of 3 AFD's (one with no consensus). thirdly, a "live-link" to r.fm would not have had any affect, nor is it relevant to wikipedias notability criteria. In addition to being Bot spammed by mass sockpuppet accounts, its a Link normaly to be avoided and fails our external links policy.
    "We are collectors of carefully selected club music recordings from around the world ...With a unique artist network of leading producers and DJs, R.fm always stay relevant - a place where you can connect to the uncompromising love for the club music movement"
     Not done--Hu12 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underground Evolved (3rd nomination) discusses the flawed second AfD but the consensus was still to delete. This isn't the venue for requesting undeletion of articles anyway. See Wikipedia:Deletion review for that. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    chriscomerradio.com

    The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

    Chriscomerradio.com was removed in January 2011 (repeated spam links) by Ckatz. Chris Comer was linking to radio interviews he has had with various celebrities and was flagged because of his site being listed in multiple articles. His site generates no revenue and is entirely for information sake. Please review this and hopefully remove the domain or implement some whitelisting. Thank you very much. chriscomerradio.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 75.6.24.224 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Sean-Der[reply]

     Not done We generally only unblacklist sites that have a history of spamming when an experienced, trusted user makes the request. In such cases, individual whitelisting would be more appropriate. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It just seems a very heavy handed ban and it can't be classified, as there is no money to be made. We can request white listing but it is very time consuming instead of unlisting a staticly created website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.24.224 (talk • contribs) 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    Don't waste your time submitting a whitelisting request if it's coming from a single purpose account. Also see WP:ELNO and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So your saying that the interviews he recorded are less valuable than say rolling stones? I understand cautioning self promotion but direct links to interviews on a site he has no commercial interest does not seem very self serving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.24.224 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what's more the concern is that the site was being spammed on Wikipedia, not what content is on the site. -- Ϫ 13:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any way I could hear the original case for why the site is (spammy). He was posting relevant links and he was not destroying the flow of the article. I really strongly believe the site was shuffled into the blacklist without Ckatz looking into the content of the site. I am not saying he did the wrong thing the sheer volume you guys work with is incomprehendable so there can be mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.24.224 (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such, Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. 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 an appropriate source (in an appropriate context) when there are no other reasonable alternatives available. --Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    rickroll.com

    The site has now been changed to the official movie site of an upcoming movie The Chronicles of Rick Roll and should be removed from spam blacklist. [rickroll.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 ]MarlinMr (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist. It's blacklisted there, not here.
    "Now been changed"? What was it before? And why should it be removed for an article that doesn't even exist? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What was it before: Rick rolling is what it was, ànd why this was abused, ànd why it was blacklisted. No reason to remove for an article that does not exist,  Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    educationupdate.com

    "Education Update" is a 14-year-old, award-winning newspaper with 100,000 readers and 2 million monthly hits on the web. Our readership includes parents, teachers, students, guidance counselors in NY and NJ, principals, superintendents, librarians, college presidents, college deans, foundation heads, politicians, business leaders and medical school deans. Education Update is mailed to over 1600 public schools in NYC, 170 schools in NJ, 207 public libraries, 150 private schools. Qwerty200075 (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. "Our readership"? We generally don't remove listings at the request of a site owner, editor, employee, or anyone otherwise connected to the site, especially for a site as heavily spammed on Wikipedia as this one. If a trusted, high-volume editor requests removal, we may consider it seriously. For now, you can request specific pages to be whitelisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    no problem I understand, but just to let you know, I'm not related at all with them, just tried to use one page of their site as a source Qwerty200075 (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    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

    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]

    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]
    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]

    www.suite101.com

    Greetings, I would like to request to remove this website from the spam blacklist. I am trying to use the site (Suite.com) + content/three-periods-of-ancient-greek-art-a5827 for little information on the article " the Hellenistic Period ". Please.--Corusant (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Defer to Whitelist We've had problems with this site before, and it's not generally a reliable source, so there's no reason to remove it from the blacklist just for one citation. If you believe that whitelisting one or a very small number of pages would improve the encyclopedia, please make a request at the whitelist instead. That will allow us to maintain blacklisting of most of the site. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:03, 19 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]

    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


    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]
    A lot of governments have been seizing or blocking domains which point to content they deem inappropriate (I believe some governments blocked WikiLeaks recently.) Linking directly to the IP is often an effective way to get around censorship if the domains have been seized.Bpodgursky (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the unlikely event that comes up, the individual addresses can be whitelisted on a case by case basis. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2011 (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]
    Before proceeding any further, you may want to read Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links, which is proposing some changes to where these requests are submitted, as well as how the requests on the page are structured. --- Barek (talk) - 19:41, 25 February 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]

    Moving

    It is proposed to relocate this process and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist to Wikipedia:Blocked external links in order to reduce the "spam" connotations. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ http://www.filmindustrynetwork.biz/work-with-pursuit-of-happyness-director-gabriele-muccino/2835
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=416607388"