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
JJEv810 (talk | contribs)
171 edits
mNo edit summary
Undid revision 866437152 by JJEv810 (talk) stop it, now
Line 12: Line 12:
{{Spam-blacklist proposed additions}}
{{Spam-blacklist proposed additions}}
<!-- new addition requests go at the bottom of this section -->
<!-- new addition requests go at the bottom of this section -->

== factor8scandal.uk ==
* {{link summary|factor8scandal.uk}}

;Spammers
*{{User summary|JJEv810}}
+ others. Please blacklist. - [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

:{{rto|Jytdog}} {{Added}} to [[MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist]]. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 18:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

:[[User:JJEv810]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=865187623&oldid=865172397 blanked] this report. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 11:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


==ancient-origins.net==
==ancient-origins.net==

Revision as of 10:17, 30 October 2018

"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Spam blacklist or Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    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 – 866439141 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    factor8scandal.uk

    Spammers

    + others. Please blacklist. - Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:JJEv810 blanked this report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ancient-origins.net

    ancient-origins.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

    Looks like a decent site at first glance but actually full of fringe, eg The Legendary Hyperborea and the Ancient Greeks: Who Really Discovered America? It gets used by innocent editors as a source and external link. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doug Weller: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: thanks, but I'm not sure what that does as it's still being added, eg here. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: It works alright, see diff and others.
    Really decided to taunt the bot .. they have now for sure seen the warnings. If they now continue ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    waddle.com.au

    waddle.com.au: 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

    Website for a company selling invoice-finance loans. Has been linkspammed by at least:

    Zazpot (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zazpot: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 22:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    tellonym.me

    User and now IPv6 hopper adding links to this with similar edit summaries. No reason for this site to be linked here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ketoconnection.com.au

    After discovering this in a talk-page FAQ, I wanted to leave a note here to see whether this is sufficiently egregious to be blacklisted. The IP who posted it last month has made no other edits, and I believe that it is not linked anywhere else on wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    cinemawoods.net


    This unreliable blog type site is being spammed on multiple Indian articles by Nirmalsite (talk · contribs) who is a spamming only account, also an editor on the blog is called Nirmal, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Atlantic306: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nirmalsite (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC) i am really Sorry for my websites adding Links in Wikipedia reference and i was not aware of Wikipedia guideline.. I Will not do this again and please Remove my site from Spam-blacklist... @Atlantic306 @Beetstra Dirk Beetstra Atlantic306[reply]

    Websites aren't removed from the blacklist at the owner's request. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nirmalsite hi please remove my Site from spamlist.. its just a news sharing website.. Please... I m really sorry bro and I will not add my news links in wiki reference Again.

    " " " " " " " " " ". —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme school

    It seem some non-notable private school slip some spam link into wiki articles in order to promote their tutoring on the exam. The two domain above is not related to the exam but relates to the school. Matthew_hk tc 16:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Modiind.com

    Link
    Spammers

    + others. Please blacklist. -KH-1 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    globalgeniuslisting.com

    Refspamming / spamming generally, per [5]. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG/help: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 16:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    whereisscihub.now.sh

    Redirect to blacklisted Sci-Hub. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG/help: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 21:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG/help:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    vakilsearch.com

    Recurring spam by IPs and SPAs with a possible COI for an online startup consultant. As a purely commercial website (with unclear credentials and expertise), their promotional information and advice have no possible encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    artofliving.org

    artofliving.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

    Found this while trying to undo a change on the art of living page. I couldn't understand why the website is added to spam. Its not redirecting, using url shortner, doing any suspicious activity, serving ads or opening pop-ups once you go to the website. The bot report also seemed unalarming. The reported vandal in proposed additions section above seems to have used it for citation. Not sure if mistakes of some user can be attributed to the website.

    While the information about the website is available on the page in form of the domain name, adding the link to spam seems like an error. Could this be corrected please? Thanks.

    PS: I'm only a visitor to the page, not someone getting paid by anyone for this. 122.178.206.30 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain per instructions there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you at least share why this domain is in spam? It doesn't violate Wikipedia:Spam or Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL in my newbie understanding. Also, not sure if discussions like these need to happen on the article's talk page. Guidance welcome. Thanks. 171.76.114.124 (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    First, the domain is not spam, editors were spamming the domain. And that has been noticed since 2009 (see e.g. User_talk:Post.amit, User_talk:Shaileshjgd, User_talk:27.106.41.93, User_talk:Sunakshitejwani). Some of the spammy material still remains, e.g. User:Wcf2016/sandbox. Edits clearly suggest coatrack edits and likely conflicts of interest (which is also suggested in the tag on Art_of_Living_Foundation). Please ask for whitelisting for the pages where this is primary source or official link type material. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Found this domain is blocked under spam list. I couldn't understand what made the website to fall under the section. It didnot violate any wikipedia terms since the domain has high authority and reputed organization involved in many social activities to report with valid proof of article link for reference. Requesting to remove the domain from the blacklisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.187.58 (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read nothing that was said above? Beetstra explained it quite well. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    econlib.org (removal request)

    Econlib provides many classical and modern economic texts and resources; while it has a right-libertarian skew (and is sponsored by something called Liberty Fund), I'd argue it has in general acceptable quasi-academic standards, with clear authorship and primary sourcing, holding a research think-tank reliability level perhaps, and it's at least worth reconsidering and clearly justifying the broad blacklisting (original inclusion discussion here and edit here). For the record what spurred my proposal is the fact that the David Ricardo 1817 book that is provided on Econlib is currently tagged as a suspect source on the Land Value Tax article page. The link itself is really sloppy (doesn't connect the Wikipedia text to a specific page and argument in the reference), but the source material is otherwise perfectly valid. Jaszczuroczłek (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What it mainly provides is an ideological wrapper around content not originated by them. It is a think-tank side project. Most of the links we have had are to out of copyright texts that should be linked to neutral repositories such as Wikisource or Project Gutenberg. It was also extensively spammed. If there is consensus to include specific content that is verifiably significant and not available from any source free of the ideological baggage, we have the Whitelist. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced the link with a link in a university library. Guess ultimately it could be on WikiSource (it may already be). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jaszczuroczłek: no Declined, redundant per above. --Guy (Help!) 23:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    cbronline.com (removal request)

    cbronline.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

    usage:

    <ref>{{cite web|url= www cbronline com/news/birth_of_a_new_dot_us_frontier/|title=Birth of a New (Dot) US Frontier|author=Nick Patience|date=10 March 1999|website=Computer Business Review|accessdate=19 October 2018}}</ref>

    69.181.23.220 (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=594109892&oldid=594064636
    https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/LinkReports/cbronline.com
    69.181.23.220 (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Defer to Whitelist to request specific links be allowed. The site will not be removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    xyznepal.com (removal request)

    xyznepal.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 My site is in blacklist, This is not spamming site, This is clean safe travel related site. I want want to remove this from blacklist. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XYZnepal (talk • contribs) 12:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The site was spammed into other WPs, not en-WP. XYZnepal, please see your talk page.Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Defer to Global blacklist. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    sci-hub

    Per policy and consensus filter sci-hub must be removed from article Sci-Hub. This is a skirting of community standards and is under no circumstance acceptable. See Talk:Sci-Hub. This is a clear exception of WP:ELNO Distrait cognizance (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Distrait cognizance: Rejected, bad faith request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In what sense is this bad faith? The block of the URL on the article page is in blatant violation of policy and the fact that it was not even considered when the block was put into place is a massive oversight. Your dismissal Beetstra is violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and enough to merit a discussion on WP:ANI about whether you are qualified to be an administrator – or at the very least are in violation of policy in your conduct towards others. There is no decision made regarding blocking the url on the page, and Whitelisting is a routine procedure that you are intentionally disrupting in violation of consensus. Distrait cognizance (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Distrait cognizance: You are NOT on the whitelist, you demand (bolded must), and suggesting that our blacklisting is skirting community standards and is in no circumstance acceptable is excessively harsh. It is not a violation of any policy, it is at worst a denial of the codified IAR that we have built into a guideline.
    I do NOT accept that tone of posts from you (nor anyone). The blacklisting is instated per reasons of a legal policy, and gives minor problems on ONE page 'violating' one line out of a guideline where solutions are already being discussed as codified in guidelines and consensus, and I am actively helping in findin a solution. Adapt your tone next time you have a request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The cause for the direct "demand" was the egregious oversight that was not considering how this would impact the article on Sci-hub, something which for any administrator working on the blacklist, should intuitively be their first thought.
    Choosing action based on tone of the request is not acceptable behavior from an administrator, and is in fact what is at fault and what is violating CIVIL and AGF. There is no indication of bad faith beyond a strongly worded reaction (mind you not uncivil, nor rude, simply strong) to the fully bizarre way in which this block was implemented.
    WP:IAR only applies as the result can be assumed to help Wikipedia. In this case the thing you'll find being defended is not Wikipedia, but your ego and pride. That is unfitting of an administrator, and only speaks to your position as sole arbiter of this list, which is itself also violation of policy.
    In any case taking out this dispute by not immediately unblocking the link for the article in question is WP:POINTY, and I suggest you unblock it before this escalates into a serious issue. Distrait cognizance (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Distrait cognizance: We're done here. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, no we definitely aren't. Choosing action based on perceived tone and thus being intentionally WP:POINTY may be enough to have you desysoped. This is going to WP:ANI as soon as I have time. This is just so far from acceptable behavior. For now, I need a second opinion from another administrator who is willing to follow policy. Distrait cognizance (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Second opinion requested — No policy rationale, a decision can not be taken on "tone of the request", especially when measured against something arbitrary. The request was neither uncivil or rude, simply on point — which seems not to be accepted by the sole administrator working this page. Distrait cognizance (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

    Now I don't get it, you apparently did it here [6]? Thanks. Distrait cognizance (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Distrait cognizance: No, you did not get it from the beginning, I have even explained it to you in my second post. Your demands in the wrong place are not getting you anywhere, your misquoting of policy/guideline neither. Your behaviour here, and elsewhere, is NOT acceptable. You are threatening multiple admins. Consider this your last warning, stop your disruptive behaviour, edit warring, and threats, or you will be blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    modiind.com (removal request)

    modiind.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

    Please remove my website URL modiind.com from Wikipedia blacklist, I don't know anything about this blacklist. Before few month's I have given SEO of my Website to one of company based in India, but I did not receive result therefore stopped SEO. Might be that SEO company person doing something to blacklist My web site. I have just spoken with one of person of SEO company, but I have not received any proper reply. Kindly remove my website URL modiind.com from Wikipedia blacklist, I don't want to be blacklisted on Wikipedia. I don't know which login details have been used for adding my website link on Wikipedia. Kindly remove my website URL from Wikipedia blacklist, I will very thankful to you.

    I am daily visiting Wikipedia for reading purposes while reading I found blacklist link and I clicked on. One blacklist page I have found my website URL. Kindly remove my website URL from blacklist as I don't know anything about this blacklist, don't punish my site.

     Not done. The site was blacklisted per the entry above on this page, due to repeated linkspamming from several accounts. We generally don't consider requests made by site owners or anyone else associated with a blacklisted site. If a trusted, high-volume editor sees a reason to link to modiind.com and requests delisting, we will consider it. If your SEO company caused problems, you need to seek restitution from them. The fact that you failed to perform due diligence in screening SEO companies for proper SEO practices, is not Wikipedia's problem. From Wikipedia's point of view, the problem is solved. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Vakilsearch (removal request)

    vakilsearch.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

    Thanks for the review. There are many commercial entities that make a big social impact listed in Wikipedia. One classic example would be Etsy. How do you make the distinction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meetajhu (talk • contribs)

    @Meetajhu: this is plain spamming. I guess that has come to an end now. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: How am i supposed to know if someone else spammed it elsewhere? I have tried to edit that page, hope it helps. I have absolutely no intention to spam. I am just trying to make Wikipedia knowledgeable for people with different backgrounds. --Meetajhu T

    Troubleshooting and problems

    If references contain blacklisted URLs

    Hope this is the right place for this kind of enquiry. What am I to do if a cited reference is to a website that has been blacklisted since the reference was added? I was just reverting vandalism on Rajat Poddar, but got a spam blacklist error because of one of the domains (awardsandwinners.com) has since been blacklisted, and so ended up leaving out that reference. — Smjg (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smjg: it depends on the reason of blacklisting, but if it is a proper reference, you should ask it to be whitelisted. Otherwise, remove the link./reference/whole statement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instructions

    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

    secresystems.net

    I would like to report secresystems.net. If anyone can figure out how to contact them and get assurances they are working on their problems, they are welcome to. Otherwise, my virus protection was disabled. This happened after I got a message saying it had expired and I should download again, which I ignored.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: The tech support person, in trying to do something else, told me to restart my computer. My virus protection was working again. No one was able to explain why. She suspected it was updating, but it seems strange it would just disappear. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=866439141"