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
Hu12 (talk | contribs)
91,877 edits
closing, BL'd on meta
Hu12 (talk | contribs)
91,877 edits
+
Line 508: Line 508:


:fyi: I removed lenr-canr.org from this blacklist for it is blacklisted at meta now. So from now on this thread should be treated as a whitelist request. Actually that makes just a technical but not a practical difference. -- [[User:Lustiger seth|seth]] ([[User talk:Lustiger seth|talk]]) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:fyi: I removed lenr-canr.org from this blacklist for it is blacklisted at meta now. So from now on this thread should be treated as a whitelist request. Actually that makes just a technical but not a practical difference. -- [[User:Lustiger seth|seth]] ([[User talk:Lustiger seth|talk]]) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::{{Notdone}}{{Deferwhite}} --[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::As seth reported its now a meta issue. Closing this as {{Notdone}}{{Deferwhite}} --[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
{{report bottom}}
{{report bottom}}


Revision as of 23:31, 10 January 2009

    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 – 263267628 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    Orthopedic cast page spam

    There was also this paragraph added to our Orthopedic cast article about the erotic use of "recreational

    casts" along with links to three more related web sites:

    These are addditional related domains:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    plus Added additional domains -- kinky casts and all. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The original whitelist request that led to these editor-blacklisted sites has already been denied/closed and nobody has suggested they be whitelisted or kept. So I created this Orthopedic cast topic thread in the blacklist area and moved these newly blacklisted site references to it to maintain a document of historic and ongoing vendor spam abuse on the Orthopedic Cast topic. I hope its the right editing protocol and apologize if not.

    The latest/newest vendor spam to be removed from the orthopedic cast page is:

    The Orthopedic cast topic has been spammed in the past with spoofed / proxy / dynamic IP's posting commercial pay sites -- so suggest that blacklisting the offending referenced pay sites (as the editor did with the sites above) is probably more productive in killing off this spam then tracking dodgy IP contributors who may or not be what they appear.

    In addition to the above blacklisted links, previous vendor spam references to this page, some by suspect IP posts, have included:

    Beetstar


    Thanks for the report.
    I've run link reports on those five domains and I am not seeing any persistent spamming in the recent past:
    Sometimes these reports miss things -- are there any additions I should be aware of?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Will keep an eye out for others. They pop up as single entry citations by vendor sites now and again typical of the latest one.

    Beetstar —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Thanks!
    FYI, we normally look for 3 to 4 warning across all accounts before we consider blacklisting, so don't forget to give escalating warnings from the grid at Wikipedia:UTM. It also helps to put a live link (with the http://) to the spam site on the user talk page so we can find all the user accounts. Don't get indignant -- just give a warning an move on.
    I hope this helps. Thanks again for your work on this. We take help from all quarters. --13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    unclesirbobby.org.uk

    Link
    Editors

    There was a big effort to get this link included in several dream articles at the beginning of this year (see IPs with warnings). Editor has been back several times over the last year. Spamming is slow and almost always with a different IP address so blocks and protection are impractical as deterrents. Requesting blacklisting. -- SiobhanHansa 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. Thanks for reporting. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Related domain that has also been spammed scarboroughphotos.org.uk :
    Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    dnabaser.com rnabaser.com and sequence-assembler.com

    See also DNA Baser history and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DNA_Baser

    Somewhat sophisticated attempts to promote these related products by:

    appear now to have devolved into simple spamming by SPAs:

    Since requests not to spam to the other accounts appear to have lead to the use of these throwaway accounts am requesting blacklisting. -- SiobhanHansa 12:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 85.16.163.218 (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) continuing to spam. -- SiobhanHansa 13:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just added \bcubic\.3x\.ro\/free-dna-tools\/index\.html\b, a page on a free server that redirects to these sites. Some records:
    • 55 records; Top 10 editors who have added dnabaser.com: Fedra (29), ClueBot (10), Madrigal12 (7), 85.16.163.218 (2), SiobhanHansa (1), 85.16.167.231 (1), Yard05er (1), Mirc007 (1), Wk master editor (1), AVBOT (1).
    • 7 records; Editors who have added rnabaser.com: Fedra (4), Madrigal12 (2), SiobhanHansa (1).
    • 1 records; Editors who have added sequence-assembler.com: Applyalert1 (1).
    • 11 records; Editors who have added cubic.3x.ro: 85.16.163.200 (5), 85.16.162.33 (3), 85.16.163.181 (2), 85.16.163.194 (1).
    I suggest immediate blacklisting of any other domains/links used to circumvent blacklisting here, and that IPs in this range (85.16.0.0/16 - EWETEL-DYNDSL-POOL9 - DE) who edit unconstructively on the page Sequence_assembly are blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to mention that I yesterday added '\bdownload3k\.com\/Install-DNA-BASER-sequence-assembling-tool\.html\b', as it was used to lead again to (this time a download site for) DNA Baser. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    clickwrestle.com

    This site was mass added today even after warnings. The site promises video clips of particular professional wrestlers. However the links lead to a subscription site which requires payment and membership to view the videos. I think most all of the links have been removed but they do seem to come back.

    clickwrestle.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

    Thank you for your time. JodyB talk 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I did some checking. Black Pants Productions also owns these domains:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    visataxes.com

    Spam domain


    Spam accounts


    Spam-only user page

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    71.226.253.124 (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)
    Continued after final warning. No additions since.--Hu12 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    amazonkindlecheap.com

    Periodically appears on Amazon Kindle, although when I looked at it just now, it was a deadlink. Still, no reason for such an obvious (to me) spammy link.

    amazonkindlecheap.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

    Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    lenr-canr.org (original thread)

    The following discussion 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.

    Long-term spamming and use to push fringe views in Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. Links actively being promoted by the site owner (e.g. [2]) in continued furtherance of a real-world dispute which has spilled over onto Wikipedia. Inappropriate as a source due to polemic and fringe advocacy, includes material hosted in violation of original publisher's copyright. Adding now, and listing here for transparency. Also newenergytimes.com seems to be apart of the same problem. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This was added, as noted; this addition by JzG appears to have supported his preferred content, making reversion of some edits of his, the same day, impossible. I have requested removal below.
    The site is a library of articles on the topic of cold fusion. I have not checked it for balance, but even if it is only a library of articles selected with a bias, it could still be usable under some conditions. I'm concerned that a private decision that some individual is linkspamming -- he presents no evidence of this, the post diff'd above doesn't show it, but is a legitimate, on the face, Talk page reference to the site, signed by the librarian -- is resulting in the loss of a highly useful resource for copies of articles; the site's own content would be, most likely, unusable, depending on details I don't know; but what JzG broke was citations of articles with links to copies of the articles on the site. Thus what could be easy verification by any reader becomes difficult; the reader will have to go to a library that has a copy of the journal involved. As to the claim of copyright violation, the site claims that permission has been obtained for its content. As I understand the matter, we are not responsible for copyright violation by a site we do not control, and absent clear evidence that a site is massively in violation, which raises other issues, this should not be a reason to prohibit links to the site. In any case, the arguments JzG presents, above, are *content* issues and should be resolved by ordinary editorial consensus, not by administrative fiat, unless some clear and serious policy violation is involved, which has not even been alleged. I do not get, as an editor, to decide unilaterally that some source is inappropriate, and neither should any admin be able to decide that and enforce it with his tools. --Abd (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (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.

    See discussion below, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#lenr-canr.org_2 --Abd (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hott Media, UK (www.hottmedia.net)

    195.160.253.4 (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)
    User:195.160.253.4 has used this IP since 11 March 2007 to insert promotional links to blogs and entertainment/music artist websites such as micro-softmusic.com and terencemas.com. Editor recently used IP to request an article created on "www.hottmedia.net," which editor described as "A private media company that facilitates the needs of many commercial record labels and unsigned artists." -RoBoTamice 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ED

    I just tried to view the page history of a page on ED and my anti-spyware detector went off that the page was trying to edit my registry. Now every couple of minutes I get a random popup for pantomi.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 think a page that is known to download malware to users computers would be a good addition for this list. MBisanz talk 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's on the meta blacklist, only the main page can be linked (through whitelisting) and I would say that anyone who links that anywhere other than in the article on ED should be banninated. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    farecompare.com

    I am in the process of blacklisting and purging the many hundreds of spam links to this price comparison site, added as spurious references to large numbers of articles. Herby spotted this one, kudos to him. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ive seen this spam before. needs blacklisted. Canis Lupus 14:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: past discussions on the links (no objections to removal of the links):
    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    nonciclopedia.wikia.com

    Another uncy off-shoot which never needs to be linked anywhere and has been spammed on User talk:Hinoa. Has potential to be spammed by the sites users like what happened with uncy.--Otterathome (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    f1portal.net

    undergroundcashsecret.com

    Accounts:

    MLM marketing scheme, user MO is to replace valid links with this URL. - MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    tinyurl

    i understand that we dont want spam in article contents, but why is tinyurl blocked ? it's very useful to make urls more useable. we should err ont he side of useability, even if that means a few links are put up that are not strictly "encyclopedic".

    facebook links

    why is facebook blocked as link ? fast, facebook is becoming a place for publishing corporate and other legit info that is more trustworthy than any of the media site, doubtful blogs etc that are routinely allowed in wikipedia ! please consider removign this block.

    aceshowbiz.com

    Why is this blacklisted, seems legit to me? Andre666 ([[User talk:Andre666|talk]]) 13:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingcomp (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I manage aceshowbiz.com, I need to know when did our website spam prolifically ? Did it happen lately or many years ago ? We have many worth suggest article such as exclusive interview with Demi Lovato (Celebrity News, Sep 18, 2008). Please consider unlisted our website from your spam list as there is no such action for years. Many years ago aceshowbiz.com just a small website, right now we've already doing partnership with many big / reliable company. There is no time for us thinking for spamming. Just quality. Please take a visit to our website an consider. Thank You.[reply]

    Domain blacklisted on meta
    Google Adsense ID: 5315453046799966
    servedby.advertising.com: site=72134


    Related domains
    These should be evaluated for blacklisting as well.


    References


    Comments for the site-owner
    Kingcomp, we typically do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed. You'll note that we've already whitelised some of your pages on such a basis.
    The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in these links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
    Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to request why this is blacklisted still. Any site can be spammed by a crazed editor that thinks they are doing the site a favor. It does not appear to get its information from "users", like some of the other sources we continue to allow to exist. Theoretically, IMDb is "spammed" on every Wiki page related to film and TV, and they are not considered "reliable sources of information".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bignole, once in a blue moon we see the crazy uninvolved editor that spams a site, but that's very rare. In this case, all the spam edits traceroute to a location in Indonesia, unlike our zillion IMDB links that have been added by established editor from around the world.
    Even though you're an established user, I'm reluctant to remove the entire domain from the blacklist since, based on this domain's history, I lack confidence the site-owner won't go back to persistently spamming us. Are there particular aceshowbiz pages you'd like to see whitelisted? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm slightly confused. You said the site-owner is the spammer, but then said you traced the spamming to a location in Indonesia. I cannot find any indication that the website's homebase, or any base, is in Indonesia. Did the site-owner admit to being the spammer or something?
    Regardless, the only reason I care is because I was trying to find sources to verify the Teen Choice Award nominations for Kristin Kreuk for the Lana Lang (Smallville) article, which is currently under GAC. People do not tend to report on general award nominations, so finding any reliable mentioning of it has been extremely difficult. I cannot use IMDb, because it is currently snubbed from usage completely (which I generally agree with, but not entirely, as such, there is a current proposed guideline for citing IMDb in the works that would allow editors to cite things like Awards, and other information that is less controversial). I came across this link--http://www.aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/kristin_kreuk/awards.html--where AceShowBiz actually has a profile for Kreuk's awards. It takes care of all that I need. Since AceShowBiz does not get its info from users, at least as far as I can tell from their page and which is a big issue with why we typically don't use IMDb (because we cannot tell exactly who it is coming from), AceShowBiz won't be criticized as much as IMDb would be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Something which is that hard to source almost certainly fails WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    scififantasyfiction. suite101. com

    I want to use this article [scififantasyfiction. suite101. com/ article.cfm/ nicola_griffith] as a reference is an article about Homosexuality in SF. It looks like a reliable source, and the interviewee is notable. I assume it was blacklisted for a spamming reason, but it remains a useful reliable source (this interview is not hosted elsewhere).Yobmod (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, i see this site has much spamming, therefore i requested white-listing of just that page instead.Yobmod (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    mapsofworld.com

    Why is this site blacklisted? I was going to use http://finance.mapsofworld.com/company/i/idemitsu-kosan.html for a reference. Is it a spam site? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Background:
    If you just need to reference a specific page, then you can request it's link be "whitelisted" at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
     Defer to Whitelist--A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a lot of links and many of them are to bot-generated pages full of even more links. It seems that somebody unrelated to mapsofworld.com was persistently adding links for that and other sites to many articles over a year ago. If there is no indication that mapsofworld.com was behind the edits, can we just unlist the site? The person who added all the links is probably gone by now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is whitelisting, but that is quite bureaucratic and troublesome. I couldn't find any evidence of one user persistently spamming this link. It has been added here and there, but probably by unrelated people. Am I missing something in the above report? There a really too many links to make much sense of it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've personally done mass rollbacks on spamming campaigns of this site (at least a year ago). The obnoxious pop-up advert doesn't help it's case either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I didn't notice because of Firefox, AdBlock and NoScript. Looking at it in IE, it sure looks like a spam site. I wonder if they stole the text I'm referencing from somewhere else. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the same setup, except I don't use noscript (though Firefox warns me about the popup before it loads it). AdBlock is handy for letting you see quickly what ads have been blocked. A few of the folks here are diligent about correlating AdWord id with other sites, which often turn out to be spam targets as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whitehat.servehttp.com

    I have no idea why this was blacklisted. I used it quite only on my page, and once as a link for some article on different radixes in math, cause i have a base converting applet. --Deo Favente (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    the whole domain servehttp.com is blacklisted on meta, see [3]. -- seth (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh i see, its blocked cause its a free domain name. I guess ill still use this site in talk pages if i need to i guess. Well in this case there are still domains missing from the same provider. --Deo Favente (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to get it whitelisted? And where should i sugest the removeal of the other free domain names? Here or on meta? --Deo Favente (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual pages may be whitelisted on the application of an established user at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. If you want to apply for a domain to be removed from the meta blacklist, see m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    sveti-stefan.net

    This is very educatible, full of information web site and helpfull becouse it can be used like a tourist guide. End it's the only one wich a point is exactly that place from topic. I propose to remove this website from the black list because it's good to have such site offer in wikipedia story about Sveti Stefan and this site is not a spam site for shure. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdjuras (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined. Your only contributions to Wikipedia are linking this site and then asking for it to be removed from the blacklist after it was blacklisted due to spamming. I think you may be looking for DMOZ, which, unlike Wikipedia, is a link repository. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Sir, I didn't know that I have to be a big contributor to get opportunity to offer that one site can be removed from the black list. I didn't expect to get an answer in a pejorative manner like this one. I am serious man and I don't like that someone speak with me like this. That is not nice, that was just my opinion that this site is very proper for the topic (Sveti Stefan) especially when I sow other links. Thanks for your advice, it's not necessary. Good by! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdjuras (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    strivinglife.com

    Greetings. This site has three transcripts of interest (only two of which were linked to from Wikipedia pages. See Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence and Waking Life. Sites were removed under the assumption that they were spam (due to the fact that a redirecting link, on another article, was corrected; and that article didn't need to have said link), but transcripts are particuarly relevant for the latter, and to some extent for the former (albeit being an English translation, supposedly that may fall under original research. If I would have known that correcting redirecting links would have caused so much trouble, I wouldn't have bothered correcting ... Strivinglife (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's what caused the block: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/strivinglife.com Note that the Waking Life was an addition, still up for discussion, and the Biological update was a link correction, not a link addition. If I should be posting this elsewhere, please let me know. Strivinglife (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.historyhouse.co.uk/essexg05a.html

    I tried to add this link to the history section of the Grays article. It contains interesting information about the history of the town from an 1848 publication. I was therefore surprised to see that it's regarded as spam and blocked. I can only presume that there have been problems with it in the past. I have no connection with anyone running the site, I found it when looking for online sources about the town's history, a subject which is only very briefly touched on by the Wikipedia article. Since the site also contains further interesting sections from White's Directory of Essex (1848) in relation to other small towns in Essex, I might further wish to refer to it when developing similar articles. Would it please be possible to remove either the site or the page mentioned above from the list? Obviously if this is a problem I'll look for other sources, however this site seems to have several worth referring to in one convenient location. IrishPete (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks. This is the first time I've encountered this problem, so I wasn't quite sure how to go about it.

    IrishPete (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.drakecircus.com

    There has been a continual and ongoing disruption of the Drake Circus Shopping Centre article by several disruptive editors. Their preferred method is to removed the official website address of the article's subject. This address has not been spammed and so far as I know only appears on the article itself which is quite within the rules of WP. After the protection has been removed from the article one of the disruptive IPs has removed the link once again. We have not been able to revert the edit due to this address having appeared somehow on the spam filter (no doubt requested by one of these disruptive editors. I'd be grateful if this entry could be removed from the filter as it should never have been there in the first place. Thanks. --WebHamster 00:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • A user with a dynamic IP had been adding the link, and promotional content about the shopping centre, to random articles, but this was probably the same user who was removing the link from the Drake Circus Shopping Centre article in an attempt to have it added to the blacklist. It was added to the blacklist on 14 November by User:Herbythyme (who is currently on a wikibreak and not an administrator). —Snigbrook 20:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was being spammed across a number of pages (including user ones) at the time. That was disruptive & that is what the list is for. I am no longer an admin & only watch limited areas of the project due to time issues.
    Whatever else it was correct to list it given the disruption being caused by people placing the link. --Herby talk thyme 12:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The link has been removed from the Drake Circus Shopping Centre article by an IP, and I tried to revert but I am currently unable to because of the blacklist (the blacklist would also prevent other users from editing the article without removing the link ). See comments above for an explanation of why it was added to the blacklist – a more appropriate solution, if the link continues to be used for vandalism, would be to add it to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. —Snigbrook 20:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Webhamster's summary at the top of this section is right in places but wrong where pointed out by Snigbrook and Herbythyme. The URL was indeed spammed in unlikely places either by IPs or by throwaway accounts (I now forget which) who were unconvincingly posing as tenants of this shopping mall. (Here's just one crass example.) At the same time the presence of the URL within the article on this shopping mall was repeatedly (and tiresomely) opposed by IPs as worthless and spam. I can agree with the latter IPs that the website is uninformative and uninteresting. (It's the site of a shopping mall, so one can hardly expect more.) Because it's uninformative and uninteresting, I find it very hard to imagine any legitimate reason ever to link to it from anywhere other than this one article. And because IPs are tireless in expressing their loathing of this shopping mall, the joe-job spamlinks elsewhere are likely to reappear. If User:XLinkBot/RevertList does what its name suggests, it will allow some irritating person with an endless supply of IP numbers to waste WP resources. I think the domain should instead stay blacklisted. (My own inclination after hours and hours wasted over this uninteresting article: Unblacklist the domain to let it be added to this article, edit the article, protect the article indefinitely, and reblacklist. But no doubt this would violate various policies.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoary's final piece in brackets seems perfect to me :). The only difference to me is (fortunately) I've not wasted hours on the (remarkably) uninteresting article. --Herby talk thyme 15:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I don't really care what happens either to the article or to the link, what does piss me off though is when wankers 'win' by gaming the system. In my eyes it just sets dangerous precedents. By adding the address to the blacklist you have given these prats exactly what they want. When it comes down to it though is that this is giving in purely because of convenience. What happens when someone tries the very same thing with www.micro$haft.com? The fact of the matter is that this link is being used correctly on the article and therefore should be allowed to be added to the article. It's a shame that the blacklist can't be versatile enough to filter the address if it's not used on that article or if it's used more than once. I still think it's a bad day when convenience wins over correct procedure.
    Oh, and yes I totally agree that this is a thoroughly uninteresting article and doesn't warrant the time that's been spent on it... not to mention all the other faecal fallout associated with it that Hoary and I have had to deal with! --WebHamster 15:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be appropriate to remove it from the blacklist. The next time the certain disruptive user removes the link, I (and other users) will not be able to revert the edit and will have to seek admin help. This is a ridiculous waste of time. The link was probably spammed around in the first place just so that the certain disruptive user could increase the time it would take for one of us to revert the edit. Jolly Ω Janner 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What about a semi-protection of this article for at least 6 months? If a link is on the blacklist it doesn't mean, that the link is evil, but it's just a possibility for us to protect the wikipedia against spamming. If we let the link on the SBL but additionally semi-protect the article that solution won't waste much time. This could be a work-around until the we are possible to restrict SBL entries to certain articles. -- seth (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Protecting the article makes no difference. If the IP fuckwits don't want the web link to appear all they have to do is spam it over the project like they did last time so that a pissed off admin like Herby once again adds it to the SBL. Once it's on the blacklist the article can't be edited without removing the link. So they get it removed by proxy so's to speak. As I said, they are gaming the system and this needs to be sorted because it's a loophole other vandals can use. Either way they win and disrupt the project in the process (albeit marginally) --WebHamster 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But there should be a link to the website on the article. It is not possible to do so whilst it is on the blacklist. I do not wish to compromise an article's quality to prevent SPAM elsewhere. Jolly Ω Janner 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree, which is why I commented above that the convenience of admins does not outweigh the fact that it's appropriate to include the link. This is the short end of a wedge that sooner or later could be jammed up a lazy admin's rear-end. --WebHamster 20:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Normaly when Wikipedia encounters this sort of disruption from a user, blocks are enforced. I have never seen one of the IP addresses blocked. I think that if this user becomes active again, we should try to enforce a range block. We have plenty of evidence. Jolly Ω Janner 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is the insidiousness of the spamming...not only on related pages and not "many pages at once", so hard to catch by watchlisting. I concur that there appears to have been (and again is, now that protection expired) a ton of gaming and throwaway/sock/rotating account usage here, bad enough that it can't even be discerned which socks are on which side of the aisle (or posing to be). But it doesn't matter...the URL is a spam problem. Blacklisting it solves it in a way that xlinkbot can't: I don't see any legitimate use of it anywhere by anyone except on this page, but we do have evidence of users attempting to do so and vandal-trackers having an annoying time tracking them. I'm with Hoary and seth here...the link seems appropriate IMO. Too much time has already been spent on such an unimportant article...fix the vandalism, protect so it doesn't happen again, move on. DMacks (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On comment "Once it's on the blacklist the article can't be edited without removing the link.":
    That's not true. Since May 2008 an article is not blocked, if there's link on it which has been placed there before the link was blacklisted. That's why I said, that a combination of a sbl addition and and a semi-protection would solve the problem. -- seth (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would support semi-protecting the article. At least six months, as the user has shown no sign of stopping. We need to remove it from the blacklist, add the URL back to the article and then re-add the URL to the blacklist and then semi-protect the article, so IPs cannot remove it. Jolly Ω Janner 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.holocaustresearchproject.org

    The site looks legit to me. I was attempting to add a ref from it to an article Heinrich Müller (Gestapo) (regarding the date when he joined NSDAP), when I got the message that the site is blacklisted. Sounds like a strange site to blacklist, as it seems to be a legitimate research project. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been discussed before. Previous consensus was that it did not meet WP:Reliable sources criteria. It was originally blacklisted at meta because of spamming from multiple accounts. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, interesting. I found a link to this site by a fairly random google search when looking for some info for the Heinrich Müller (Gestapo). Superficially it looked quite all right to me. But if there is history of actual spamming from this site, that is a different matter. I would have to look at it more closely. Nsk92 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    lenr-canr.org

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


    This site is a library of articles on the topic of Cold fusion, which is highly controversial. Some articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, or that are written by a notable expert, and which may, under some circumstances, be usable as sources for Wikipedia, can be found here; the site claims that permission was obtained, and there may be no other available copies on the web. Administrator JzG appears to have been involved in disputes over the cold fusion articles; in any case, he removed some links from the article on Martin Fleischmann, breaking citations, without discussion, and, at the same time, blacklisted the library site. His "proposed" listing -- he had already listed it -- explained his rationale, but didn't show evidence of spamming, the single diff appears to be a legitimate mention of the site by the librarian, who identifies himself, on a Talk page, which is exactly where a COI editor should make suggestions. This appears to be an administrator making a content decision and enforcing it with his tools; it was impossible to undo his edits to the article because of the listing. He cites Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, but that arbitration didn't establish that lenr-canr was proper to blacklist. I've requested that he remove the listing, but he has refused. Please remove the listing. --Abd (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is not a "library" it is a fringe advocacy site. Problems which led to blacklisting include:
    1. Spamming by the site owner - he calls himself a "librarian" but is actually the webmaster of the site. He is banned for multiple block evasion. Some of his contributions:
      JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      208.65.88.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      See also his input in debates
    2. Promotion of the site by the site owner in evasion of multiple blocks.
    3. Copyright violations (which abd appears to acknowledge in the request above; those peer-reviewed papers are not copyright of lenr-car, the ones which do not violate copyright come from fringe journals, the ones from journals which are actually usable violate copyright, and in any case we sould cite the source journal not some fringe website which hosts copies of the articles with, in at least one documented case, editorial comment to skew the presentation).
    4. Misrepresentation of sources (e.g. a heavily editorialsied summary of a USDoE review linked from lenr-canr instead of the report itself being linked from .gov).
    5. Fringe advocacy - as a "library" it fails badly, since it includes primarily sources which are against the mainstream (and where the mainstream is represented, editorial comment and apologia may be added).
    Abd apparently wants one link on one article. That might justify a whitelisting of that one link if it weren't for the fact that it is not a reliable source, and the article subject in question is a WP:BLP who incidentally has over 14,000 hits on Google Scholar, which rather indicates that better sources are probably available for any facts needing support - assuming the section in question does not fail WP:UNDUE, which it might well do. Regardless, this domain has been abused for a long time and I have also been requested to take it to the meta blacklist, so removing it from the blacklist on the basis of wanting to restore a single link to a single article seems foolish given the long-term disruption the site owner has caused. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, whitelisting individual citations is a possible solution, but it's not what I "want" right now. I want the blacklisting removed until and unless it is independently reviewed, with proper consideration and evidence. I consider that JzG, as an involved editor, improperly used his administrative tools to add the site. He should not do both: vigorously argue for blacklisting, as he does above, and then be the judge, jury, and executioner. I could take the time to dismantle what he's written above; on the face of it, it's inadequate. The request is made for removal here, because the addition was improper. I'd rather not waste time right now arguing against each point JzG has made, but it could be done. It should be moot. He shouldn't have added the site, period, and, as Petri Krohn notes below, I wish he would just remove it. How much harm would it do? I can say this, it could do some harm if it stays on the blacklist, it has already done harm. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What, so you could address the policy reasons for blacklisting a site which was abused but you prefer to focus on the person instead, even though I posted it for review at the time? Riiiight. Apart from the single link on the Fleischmann article, which others do you intend to restore? The copy of the DoE review which turned out to be heavily editorialised? The ones where there is no evidence of copyright release? The ones added by Pcarbonn, who is now banned from this topic? The ones added and suggested by Jed Rothwell, the site owner? Or are there others which are provably good content which does not advocate a fringe POV and/or violate copyright? Guy (Help!) 09:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. - As to the copyright issue: Copyright on scientific publications (like all works) originates from the creator, not the publisher. Authors can and generally do retain rights to distribute the papers outside the printed journal. The lenr-canr.org site states: "...more than 500 original scientific papers reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers." I see no reason to doubt that they have the right to distribute the limited set of articles. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong. I have had exactly that discussion with numerous academic publishers and authors in respect of a site where I am on the editorial board. Even the creator is not usually allowed to put full text on the net, and they are certainly not allowed to "release" copies to another site - the copyright statement tells you that the material is (c) the publisher, not the authors. Here we also have at least one case where the hosted "copy" was shown to have been falsified to better reflect the bias of the site owners. There is no way we should be linking to that site, plus the main reason for blacklisting was abuse and promotion by the site owner anyway. This is not a case of "abusing the spam filter to enforce POV", it is a case of using the spam filter to control link abuse. As to POV, have you actually read the arbitration case on cold fusion? This addressed the precise issue of the abuse of Wikipedia to promote a POV, and it was not me who was doing it. But that is a sideshow. This site is (a) subject to spamming and promotion by its webmaster (WP:SPAM; (b) hosting copyright material without evidence of copyright release (WP:C); (c) not a reliable source, having been shown in at least one case to be hosting a falsified copy better reflecting a fringe POV (WP:RS); (d) a site which is biased and advocates a fringe POV and is therefore not a neutral source for content (WP:NPOV). It is not an appropriate source, and Wikipedia was abused by its owner and his friends to promote it. Perfectly routine blacklist. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright issues

    I wrote to Jed Rothwell asking about the copyright issues.

    >Could you elaborate on why you believe you have the right to host
    >these publications.


    As stated on the first page of LENR-CANR.org, this website: ". . .
    features a library of more than 500 original scientific papers
    reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers."

    If I do not get permission, I do not upload the paper. I have ~1,200
    scanned images of papers plus roughly 1,000 printed copies of papers
    that I cannot get permission to upload, so I have not uploaded them.
    They are listed in the bibliography.

    Here is an example of document by the publisher gave me permission to
    upload "selected pages." They let me decide which pages to upload:

    http://lenr-canr..org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf

    Here is an example of a paper that the publisher told me I could not
    upload. They did give me permission to upload the abstract:

    http://lenr-canr..org/acrobat/SzpakSfurtherevi.pdf

    Obviously, I have a copy of this paper. If I were to go around
    ignoring publishers' demands, I would upload it. I would also incur
    the enmity of publishers and authors alike, and they would stop
    giving me papers -- which would be a disaster for LENR-CANR.org. So I
    wouldn't do that!

    - Jed

    What further proof would be needed on his permission to host the documents on his server? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Petri. I asked admin User:DGG, who is a librarian professionally, to take a look at this. He wrote an opinion on JzG's talk that the site should not be blacklisted. --Abd (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He would need to prove copyright release from the copyright owner in every single case, the owner being the publisher of the source journal. In most cases (as in: in every single case I have come across with any journal of any significance whatsoever, so likely every single paper whichmerits inclusion per WP:UNDUE) this is not granted for any purpose to any site. Jed Rothwell is employing a fairly typical fast-and-loose attitude to copyright - it's OK unless they tell me not to - but L.A. Times v. Free Republic makes it pretty plain that explicit consent is required in all cases. Of course Rothwell is extremely keen that we link to his website, but his needs are not really our concern. It is, after all, a site devoted to advocating a fringe view, so effectively useless as a source of original content, and that content which is not original should be cited to the original source ideally using a DOI - abstracts are almost always available from the original publsihers, certainly if the content is reputable enough to be cited. DOIs work like ISBNs for academic papers; the dx.doi.org service redirects you to the appropriate source for the abstract. This is a much better solution than linking to a site which has been abused in the past for falsification of references. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of this was difficult to understand?
    As stated on the first page of LENR-CANR.org, this website: ". . . features a library of more than 500 original scientific papers reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers."
    If I do not get permission, I do not upload the paper.
    He states: "authors and publishers." He's either lying or all the material on the site, excepting possible errors, is legitimate. And our policy is clear that isolated violations don't justify excluding a site. He claims to have "explicit consent," so the case cited is irrelevant. Is there any evidence that any papers there are in violation. Yes, we can cite the papers, without using lenr-canr.org, but serving the readers indicates that linking is a convenience to them. Abstracts don't cut it. I've asked for evidence of "falsification of references," and it hasn't been provided; however, I think I know what JzG means. He means that, in his opinion, an editor inappropriately used a source. That does not impeach the source, it impeaches the editor who abused it. It was a technical error, in any case, to cite lenr-canr.org as the source; the source is the original publication, which is acceptable or not, depending. The legitimate use of lenr-canr.org is to show a legitimate copy of the paper. And, in spite of some substantial objection from editors, JzG is insisting on his right to use his tools to block this, to essentially abuse the blacklist in service of his position on content. Abuse of admin tools is a serious matter, it is more serious than the issue of this one source. --Abd (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    fyi: I removed lenr-canr.org from this blacklist for it is blacklisted at meta now. So from now on this thread should be treated as a whitelist request. Actually that makes just a technical but not a practical difference. -- seth (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As seth reported its now a meta issue. Closing this as  Not done Defer to Whitelist --Hu12 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (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.

    moneyweek.com

    Major UK financial magazine. Blacklisted here. Causing obvious problems on the editor, Merryn Somerset Webb's article [4]. Please justify addition. If removing, please enable the commented out text and reference link in the article. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Having seen the justification, I agree with blacklisting Agora group as a whole. The ban the group argument hits a nerve with me too - why should people who volounteer their time to edit Wikipedia spend significant time and effort to determine which elements of the group spam, and which do not. Agora had the same opportunity to learn and conform to Wikipedia rules as everyone else. They failed to do so. I say this as someone who has considerable respect for some of the Moneyweek journalists - after ~20 years of investing, and having read copious material on the subject, the number of peope who hold this respect can be counted on the fingers of both hands. Good work A. B.
    If it hasn't already been done, I'd suggest removing links added by proven spammers.
    I don't understand how the process works. Please allow -
    Oh bugger, I can't list them as they're blacklist, of course :-( - see edit text comment.
    Since Moneyweek is a large (the largest?) UK financial magazine, blacklisting will prevent editors less persistant than me (like many things on WP it seems complicated for experienced editors who are not normally involved in the particular aspect) from adding genuine information. You may need to review the existing URL references to Moneyweek in ~61 articles - [5] as they may well be genuine and will prevent any further editing.
    -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest removing the whole domain moneyweek.com from the blacklist, because it seems to be a useful domain: [6]. Perhaps it should be added to a list of one of your bots? -- seth (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    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.

    Have added a supplement, a general " how-to of sorts. --Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals 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 do add 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. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

    For those with access to IRC, there this data is available in real time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    poking COIBot

    I notice that sometimes people who are not active on IRC need some link reports. Admins here can now add {{LinkSummary|domain}} to User:COIBot/Poke, when COIBot picks up the edit to that page (and it should), it will put the domains into its reporting queue (high priority, which is, only behind waiting XWiki reports) and create a report on the link(s). The first report should be saved within about 5 minutes, if it takes longer than 15 minutes there is probably something wrong, and it may be useful to add the template with the link again (it reads the added part of the diffs (the right column)), or poke me or another person who is active on IRC personally. Hope this is of help. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Please don't overuse this function, everything still needs to be saved .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Um, help...

    I have no idea how to make a request, nor link to my profile, but I am Soulen and can you revert the text I added to the Dragon Ball Z Tenkaichi back in, and just not the link to Youtube?


    Backlog at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

    If you can, please pitch in and help whittle this down. We have editors who've been waiting several months.

    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've cleared most of this. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Archiving

    Looks like this page could use more frequent archiving. As a non-admin I see that as a task I could help with. There don't seem to be any standards so I propose moving any section that has been completed "denied", "done" or query answered with no further discussion) for 7 days and any that has been marked as "defer to..." for 14 days. Hopefully this will make the list easier for admins to see what needs doing. Let me know if there are any objections otherwise I'll go ahead with this in a day or two. -- SiobhanHansa 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    …

    Is there any proof this blacklist is accomplishing much of anything? Just seems to be annoying to, well, me personally, ATM. There are legitimate URIs that need to be shortened to be included in edit summaries. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=263267628"