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 448: Line 448:


:"I haven't add thermowellworld.com, glassthermocouples.com" -- once again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermocouple&diff=prev&oldid=332986440 demonstrably] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=332443622&oldid=332028494 false]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:"I haven't add thermowellworld.com, glassthermocouples.com" -- once again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermocouple&diff=prev&oldid=332986440 demonstrably] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=332443622&oldid=332028494 false]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry MER-C but i didn't do it, We are on shared network may be someone from my company put that link in the wikipedia, sorry again. I make sure this type of mistakes never happen again. Thanks


==myolie-wu.co.cc==
==myolie-wu.co.cc==

Revision as of 04:26, 22 June 2010

    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 – 369491317 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    Fallingrain.com

    (Carried over from wrong place of discussion). Myself, Darwinek and many other active editors are well aware that this site fallingrain.com contains false information, particularly population and altitude which have regularly been shown to be grossly inaccurate. For instance it would say "771 people" in a 7 km radius yet according to official Chinese census data it actually has 35,000 in the town notincluding surrounding villages. Others include a coastal village in Madagascar which falling rain claimed had an altitude of 360 metres when it is clearly barely above sea level. The site is 15 years out of date and I've seen it used by lesser informed individuals to reference articles which is a major threat to reliability. Worst affected are Pakistan and India. I believe the community expressed concern previously about fallingrain as fialing to adhere to reliable sources. The coordinates are generally accurate but little else actually is. I propose the blacklisting of this website and the removal of links to it from all articles which I believe would be a major cleanup. The shoddy name alone is enough to think the article is false which uses it as a reference or link. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    True Fallingrain.com cannot be trusted. From my own experience it is grossly unreliable website with simply false information about population, altitudes and even the names of towns/villages. Wikipedia should be a respected source of knowledge, which it cannot be with this website used as a reference in many articles. There are much more reliable statistics and sources (especially official ones), which can be used. Blocking this website and removing all links from Wikipedia would only benefit the project. - Darwinek (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a note asking me to come here and comment on this site. I don't remember ever having used it myself. I checked however, and at this moment, 9,530 wikipedia articles have links to it.
    If the suggestion is to blacklist this site, are we talking about replacing every instance where it is used with a more reliable link? That is at least 9,530 links. If this is to be done individually, by humans, and it takes a human, on average, one minute per correction, a minimum of 150 person-hours.
    Never having used this site, I think I should stay neutral. If, however, it is blacklisted, I will agree to be part of an effort to look for replacement links. I'll sign on for sixty articles.
    Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL Geoswan. You are an old fashioned guy! 9,530 links could be removed in just a few hours using AWB or even better a bot. Nobody is going to be spending 150 hours on that job for sure!!! But the fact it is used in 9530 articles is extremely concerning in terms of reliability....

    So, setting a bot to remove the URLs, without trying to replace them with more reliable links is an acceptable option? That's a relief. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A bot or AWB could be used to remove the links. In a lot of cases they are used along side other sources so removing the falling rain website is in my view a case of despamming and avoiding misleading editors by exposing them to unreliable population and altitude data. The most serious cases are those though where no reliable sources are available and falling rain is used as a primary source, often to source population and other data which is unavailable. Relying on fallingrain for population and such figures (as I've myself been guilty of with Tibet for instance) as caused a major reliability problem and mass of errors and should be cleaned up and delisted asap.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Not to mention that the site still thinking it is 1995-6 still shows some closed railway lines in numerous articles and has been used as a primary source, so in effect it is giving misleading information and implies that certain railway lines and small settlements that have been abandoned still exist. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is with some concern the amount of usage of innacurate information from the site can be found in wikipedia as a 'valid source' - some time ago - the Australian project editors who had reviewed the innacuracy actually voted for and succeeded in getting an article about fallingrain afd'ed - that had been created by an editor who had over-relied upon the fallingrain source - and by any account may well still be doing so - any definite action in reducing reliance upon an unreliable source on the web would be appreciated by those who have to debate with editors who claim it is a useful source - when editors who have sufficient knowledge of context of some of the information - see it as a misleading and often incorrect source SatuSuro 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the site already in XLinkBot? That seems like the appropriate way to warn editors that the site contains unreliable data when they try to add it, while still allowing editorial discretion. While the RfC showed that unreliability can be a factor in blacklisting, there was little support for blacklisting merely unreliable sites absent actual spamming. Youtube is a similar unreliable site, and IIRC it's in XLinkBot, not the blacklist. Let me see: [1] Gigs (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in support of the move to remove the site from the whitelist - my understanding is it relies rather heavily on an old list which has got some circulation on the net already (the original version of Mapquest circa 1999 was based on it for non-US mapping, for instance, but more recent versions use their own mapping which is almost exactly accurate). The Fallingrain map of my own city contains towns which have never existed, misspellings/mislocations of places which do exist, a suburban boundary that is around 40 years out of date and a number of key features missing. Orderinchaos 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisting this site solely because it's an unreliable source is not supported by larger consensus. While the recent RfC did indicate that reliability can be a factor in blacklisting, there was also near universal consensus against using it as a sole factor. Since the addition of these links were not for spam purposes (but rather added in good faith), I see no justification for blacklisting this site. That said, if the data truly is unreliable, I would not be opposed to systematic removal of the site as a reference, and its addition to XLinkBot. Gigs (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that editors add these link and even use its data in good faith believing it to be reliable source. The HUGE problem is that experienced geo editors on here are fully aware of its pitfalls and know that there are thousands of articles containing false data from this site. If you do not thinkin this is concerning I seriously question you as a wikipedian. We should not tolerate inaccurate articles. Even external links to this site presents false data to our readers. If we irresponsibility continue to ignore this problem and fail to recognise it as a bad source, lesser informed individuals will continue to generate many more false articles like Subego. Before you know it we'll have 20,000 articles using referenced data to falling rain and the accuracy of geo articles will continue to degrade. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from requested removals to requested additions. I am minded to grant this request, but as there is some opposition, a consensus is necessary. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference link for easier review:
    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From several years' experience with this and the meta blacklist, I've seen that blacklisting domains that are widely used in good faith by regular editors results in massive multi-day disputes spread over multiple noticeboards. Furthermore, it's nice to talk about writing a script to remove simple links from an "external links" section, but what about in-line references? I've seen attempts to do that with scripts that have turned into real messes, both mechanically and editorially. If you remove the reference, do you remove the assertion it supports? Or do you find a new ref? Or do you just leave a {{fact}} tag? Expect an article-by-article debate over in-line refs.
    If you really, really want to blacklist these links, I suggest you first build a much broader consensus than you'll get just from the editors that watch this board. I'd start an RFC and post announcements with links at every geographically-related WikiProject as well as the Village Pump.
    As for me, I'm laying low. I've seen the fights over 500 dubious links and this will be much bigger. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a lame excuse. If you were really concerned with the accuracy of our articles you would not stand in the way of 9000+ articles which are known to contain false data or redirect users to false information in external links. It is ludicrous that you think there is going to be a fight over the delisting of falling rain. Who exactly believes it is a reliable source? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Lame excuse" -- great. Thanks for the feedback, Dr. Blofeld.
    "Who exactly believes it is a reliable source?" -- the 100s of editors who added this link. The community operates on consensus and I have recommended you start by building it. I've suggested a process to follow if you want this domain blacklisted … and stay blacklisted. Personally, I have a lot of other things I'm working on on Wikipedia and I don't have much time for this one now. Not just the big dispute that'll transpire but also carefully removing 1000s of links.
    "If you were really concerned with the accuracy of our articles you would not stand in the way of 9000+ articles…"
    OK, if this is still so important and urgent enough to you that I should do something, then you start by doing some of the work yourself. Blacklisting here does not remove the existing links. If appropriate (and I'm not sure it is), then you go remove 900+ with community consent; then we'll talk about blacklisting. Call it a 10% downpayment on the 1000s more links you'll remove. Until then, I'm assuming you want others to do all the work on this.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An additional thought to slow the addition of new links -- perhaps you could develop some bot that spots links as they're added and politely informs the editor adding them of reliability issues with this link.
    Also, I can't encourage you enough to start educating your fellow editors. I suggest leaving notes at the Village Pump, the reliable sources noticeboard and various Wikiprojects describing the problem. You are a prodigious article builder and most of our other editors just don't have as much experience and insight as you do in many cases. By posting notices around, you can start slowing the addition of new links. Also, as you remove existing links, I suggest leaving notes on article talk pages explaining the removal. You could probably come up with some sort of tactful boilerplate text for this purpose. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry my manual editing time is better spent trying to promote articles such as Mahamuni Buddha Temple than manually going through 900 articles removing the links at a snails pace. That is a task for a bot or an AWBer. If somebody here, such as Xenobot would like to volunteer and remove 900 or so further links to falling rain as a trial by all means go for it. I think then you'll see there will be no major objections to this. Perhaps Xeno could remove 900 links to falling rain in the external links section to articles? The reason why even external links are a threat is because often the articles don't contain any data and somebody guided to falling rain will think the population estaimate and data given there is totally accurate. So even if the facts are not on wikipedia we have a duty to guide people to accurate information not out of date guesses of an area. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to Dr. Blofeld's harsh remarks above about my motivations and actions I will not take up space here but for the record I have made a response at User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Others care as much about Wikipedia as you do(permanent link) --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: Dr. Blofeld's response. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will run this as a bot task if you can demonstrate sufficient consensus for it, perhaps by initiating a thread at WT:EL or WP:RS/N, and notifying interested parties of the discussion (as A. B. suggests, notes at WP:VPM, geographic wikiprojects, and the like). –xenotalk 15:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is a consensus really needed to remove 9000 known errors or links to errors on wikipedia? Isn't good faith from 4 of our most active geo editors, myself, Darwinek, Orderinchaos and User:Satusaro enough? The objections here seem purely based upon the apparent difficulty involved with removing the links. Trust me. I used falling rain for ages. We now have 500 odd Tibetan village articles with false population and altitude data that I know is false. I'm not happy with this situation. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If a source is demonstrably unreliable - that is to say, if it can be shown that the information is factually incorrect - then all references to it should be removed, post haste. Consensus may be required to deal with facts of a dubious nature, but when it can be shown that a data source is simply wrong it would be inane to wait for some kind of discussion before we start getting rid of links to said source. Shereth 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not needed to edit, but blacklisting a non-spammed site would require strong consensus. I have not checked the situation but I accept what Dr. Blofeld says, and I agree that having an absurdly wrong source used 9000 times (or even once) is extremely concerning and warrants a strong reaction. However, what A. B. says is totally correct and the situation is very delicate. There are quite a lot of people who regard the blacklist with deep suspicion (with extremely incorrect opinions like that it is a petty bureaucracy run by power-crazed people who never contribute to the encyclopedia, and that it is a violation of human rights conflicting with "anyone can edit", and more). I do not think any discussion here can generate enough participation to take what is possibly an unprecedented step of blocking a site purely because it is unreliable (and the discussion required would be disruptive for this noticeboard). I know it is absurd that you should have to jump through so many hoops to have junk removed, but that's what a consensus-run wiki needs. I think a specific RFC should be created with a fairly open structure: give some links showing examples of how bad the problem is; list some possible procedures; invite comment. Link to the RFC here and at any relevant WikiProject and at ANI. There was an RFC on a somewhat related topic, see WP:Requests for comment/Reliability of sources and spam blacklist. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shereth, everything is demonstrably unreliable. OK first example I looked at. Lets try Birkelane, Senegal. Official statistics site here says it has a population of 4,196. Falling rain claims it has an "estimated" population of 8,046 here back in 1995. Now lets try Kalaat es Senam, Tunisia. Official statistics claim 5044 people for 2004 census. Falling rain claims 3278 people in a 7 kilometres radius!!! let alone the town. Lets also see Shaki, Azerbaijan official statistics reveal it has somewhere between 63,000 and 65,000. Falling rain claims 107,456 people!!! GROSSLY INACCURATE by nearly 50,000!!. I could provide you 9000 examples of the same thing in practically every place I can think of. I find it very concerning nobody thinks that this is a problem. If is was known BLP errors a bot would have sorted this long ago in panic. They are not only errors but (most) of them are blunders in terms of factual information. Falling rain claimed something like 771 people for a Tibetan town, the official statistics for 2006 said 35,000 odd. The altitude data is also notoriously way out. Much more accurate data for altitude can be obtained from google earth. This site is a dinosaur. As Satusuro said it still shows railway markings and settlements on maps that disappeared like 30 years ago. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Do take some ownership of the problem here, Blofeld! [2] I'm going to go ahead and proceed with removing the ones that are external links. –xenotalk 13:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We could at first start with XLinkBot revert both external links ánd references to fallingrain.com. That should bring the influx a bit down, and we might get an idea how it gets used by new and anon users (unfortunately it is more difficult to do it for regulars, which would be quickly met with big opposition).
    If there is deliberate referencing to fallingrain in order to incorporate false information, then I would regard that as a form of abuse which would be a reason to blacklist. But if most/all of the editing is in good faith, we indeed need a strong consensus here to blacklist the site, though I do not think that it is an absolute no-no to blacklist links if there is sufficient support to list it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there is anything deliberate, I just think people wrongly trust it as an adequate source when I could provide 9000 examples of how the data is false. As Xeno pointed out I have enough expereince with this site to know what I'm talking about as I used it for Tibetan villages only to find out later the data is way off. I do not want other users making the same mistake. As it is thousands of Indian and Pakistani articles and African articles have this as a primary source. Not good. The only correct thing is the coordinates. But even external links leading to the site should be removed as it is directing a reader to false information. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've gone ahead an added it to XLinkBot with a customised warning in the settings. Xeno, maps can be done using the toolserver / google maps, weather via the national weathcer page, and airport information should be on Bandela airport (do we also have to link to the bus schedule and the opening times of the local barber?). Moreover, if the site is so grossly unreliable as Dr. Blofeld says, how do we trust the weather and airport info on that site? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. Thanks for the input. –xenotalk 13:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Another random example Naajaat. 63 people according to the 2007 census. Fallingrain claims it is uninhabited. Does that kind of consistent blunder really need consensus to agree it is an unreliable source? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not an unintended consequence, that sentence just needs a {{fact}}-tag. No-one can be sure that that info originated from fallingrain.com, or whereever, it is just an unreferenced statement on a page where there is, accidentally, also a fallingrain.com link. I do hope that references on sentences which were only referenced to fallingrain.com are replaced with said fact-tag? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No for Tibet I know this is where the data is from. Another errand needs doing to remove the population and altitude sentences. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I could do this but only if the statements are of a standard form (such as the "Approximate population for a 7 km radius..." statement. that Blofeld used). –xenotalk 11:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why remove, it is interesting information, though a proper source should be found, the number updated, and properly referenced. I would say that fact-tagging is the way to go, I would oppose bot-removal, but would support an attempt to update and correct, and if that is not possible, remove. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can add cn tag then, if that's preferred. –xenotalk 11:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thus far there has been only one objection to the task [3], I reproduce it here along with my replies for the record. –xenotalk 16:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You've just deleted the Fallingrain external link at Skelani which was useful because it provided readily visible maps - no extra clicking. The latitude and longitude information is confirmed by other sites and the population figure is not implausible even given the demographic issues since the 1991 census. So I'd have opted to keep that link had anyone been bothered to ask. Opbeith (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

    Please feel free to undo the bot and add {{bots|deny=Xenobot}} to the page to prevent the bot revisiting it. But please discuss further at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Fallingrain.com; my bot is merely doing what I've been asked to - and what seems to have consensus. –xenotalk 15:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for that considerate reply. I'll leave it as I've learned that once people have their teeth into something at Wikipedia it saves energy better used for other purposes to recognise which way the wind's blowing. The idea of deleting the subject rather than using it to warn people tells me enough. But I appreciated the decent reply. Opbeith (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    No problem. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "deleting the subject rather than using it to warn people", though? –xenotalk 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

    What about the remaining ones? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Remaining links used as references -- what's next?. –xenotalk 13:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fallingrain compared to MSN maps

    MSN maps, which can be accessed via {{coord}} with two button pushes compared to Fallingrain's one button push, are a reasonable alternative to Fallingrain.

    • Shows topography/elevations though in less detail, and less colour.
    • shows railways, including many that were closed 50 years ago. (Doesn't bill gates of MSN fame own $1b dollars worth of railroad shares?)
    • Shows rivers and borders better.
    • doesn't bother with disputed rainfall statistics.
    • doesn't bother with disputed population statistics.

    See Skelani

    Can the bot which is deleting references to fallingrain be modified to insert the equivalent direct MSN reference?

    The fallingrain coordinates are reasonable as can be seen when creating the {{coord}} > tag, so the bot deleting fallingrain should not do so unless the completed {{coord}} tag exists. Tabletop (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also support the removal of the MSN encarta links. I believe that atlas no longer exists anyway. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @Blofeld, that seems to be different than what Tabletop is suggesting. @Tabletop, how would the bot determine the proper URL for the one-button push map? –xenotalk 15:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I think that the URL for a one-push line to the say MSN map would have to be determined manually via the "coord" function. Tabletop (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Remaining links used as references -- what's next?

    We still have 1000s of these links left in ref tags.

    Every time someone removes a reference -- even a bad one -- they have to make an editorial decision. It's not just house-keeping. Do they find a replacement ref? Just leave a {{fact}} tag? Remove the assertion that the ref is supporting? Remove the ref and just do nothing?

    What if the reference is the only thing supporting notability? Do they tag the article for notablility? Nominate it for deletion (AfD)? Propose it for deletion (WP:PROD)?

    I think the process followed so far -- thoughtfully removing links, leaving notices on various noticeboards, stemming the addition of new links with a bot -- is a good one.

    What are others' thoughts on moving forward? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In my view the links should be removed by semi automation and those facts which are referenced to falling rain be removed with the reference. It is no good removing the references and leaving data which is false. That defeats the object. There is also no use adding a fact tag as if it is population or altitude data it is likely false anyway. They need to be removed together. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree (see my "unintended consequences" above), but suppose an editor did a hundred of these removals. It's likely that someone would strongly question the editor: Why are you removing these? Do you know they are incorrect? How? I still think some form of wider discussion would be needed so an edit summary could link to the consensus decision. Would WT:WikiProject China be suitable? Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hamptons.com

    hamptons.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 . Various users and IPs adding to The Hamptons article. I had the article semiprotected for a while, but when it lifted the links started happening again. Syrthiss (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Linked quite widely .. maybe needs some cleanup. I'll have a look at COIBot's report in a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    airsoftsentry.com

    link
    account
    relatedsites

    The site redirect to paintballsentry.com - which is already listed on the local SBL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No serious spamming issues, methinks. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done per Stifle. Ale_Jrbtalk 10:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoohow .. no .. this is a serious spamming issue.
    Blatant promotion and other forms of spamming, including blacklist evasion by inserting non-clickable links and by creation of new domains. Is this still going on (I did block the editor in question already, and I did blacklist a number of domains of this spammer)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the above report due to spamming, using new domains to get around existing blacklisting, sockpuppetry and block evasion. However, the spamming seems to have stopped again at about the same time this had been reported - so no immediate need for blacklisting at this time. Although, should it resume, this should be re-requested. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    speedwayresearcher.org.uk

    speedwayresearcher.org.uk: 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 WikiProject Spam report MER-C 02:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please. This site has had a nasty history with spamming going back to 2006. ThemFromSpace 07:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Annoying, but has only really been spammily added by one user, who has been blocked several times for it, and can be again if it resumes. Several other uses appear genuine, so I'm tempted to leave it be... Ale_Jrbtalk 07:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been on the Harringay Stadium article for a while now and I think it adds real value. It looks to me like it's someone's personal passion. If they've added it too widely, I imagine that their motivation stems from misguided passion and can most likely be reined in with a kind but firm word. I'd regret seeing it removed from the Harringay article. hjuk (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Can most likely be reined in with a kind but firm word"... we've tried that. That IP has been blocked four times up to 6 months for spamming and isn't going to stop. MER-C 13:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it added to irrelevant articles? As I said, it adds value to the Harringay Stadium one. If the other articles it's added to benefit from the links, I don't see a problem. Any road up, no big deal for me. I've said my piece. You guys decide. hjuk (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    musthavetoday.com

    musthavetoday.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

    Edits to Skype and Skype security from multiple IP addresses. This edit vandalized replaced a relevant reference with a n irrelevant one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skype_security&diff=prev&oldid=363785442. See other edits of Special:Contributions/109.178.95.157, Special:Contributions/109.178.96.58, Special:Contributions/109.178.112.232. Pnm (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    belgovision.com

    belgovision.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

    Numerous reports of malware, malicious content etc. See http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/belgovision.com

    expressor-software.com

    expressor-software.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

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 12:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    vishnupriya.in

    vishnupriya.in: 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 WikiProject Spam report MER-C 13:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    flowtechinstruments.com

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 11:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    advocatemizan.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    glasspaint.com

    See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/glasspaint.com MER-C 08:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    superm.com spam

    Spam domain:

    Related domain:

    Accounts:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    celebsexreview.com

    celebsexreview.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

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Voobly.com

    classicalviolinvideos.com

    See WikiProject Spam report. Continued spamming from an IP hopper or dynamic IP despite level 4 warnings being handed out liberally. ThemFromSpace 01:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    allrotour.ro

    allrotour.ro: 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 WikiProject Spam report MER-C 02:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    thecurrentaffairs.com

    thecurrentaffairs.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

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 06:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    advocatemizan.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    thecrane.tv

    thecrane.tv: 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 WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    durgapurcity.co.in

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 02:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    studenthighlife.com

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    acu.ac

    This may be a bit unorthodox, but this listing is requested to avoid future issues related to WP:OUTING. See this especially. Contact me via e-mail please for more information about this sensitive request.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more than a 'bit' unorthodox imo, and I think wider community discussion might be needed before using the spam blacklist for this sort of thing (unless there are precedents I'm unaware of). Any thoughts by anyone else? Ale_Jrbtalk 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    acu.ac: 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
    Added {{LinkSummary}} for easier review of link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done This requires consensus to blacklist outside of the normal process. Suggest discussing at WP:ANI, and resubmit if consensus supports this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    boryokugai.com

    boryokugai.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 one gets perennially spammed to Japanese films and genres. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    gcaptain.com

    gcaptain.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

    Site is systematically adding links through articles related to ships. Site fails WP:ELNO #10 and #11. HausTalk 19:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Revertlisted for now. MER-C 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd thought about blacklisting this one before, having caught a few SPA accounts canvassing links. It has been listed in good-faith by established editors on occasion, though I'm not sure if all or any of the content meets WP:Reliable sources guidelines. For now, leaning toward blacklisting coupled with whitelisting as necessary per request of established editors. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList a user complained about a removal of this site (not by XLinkBot), stating that it was a relevant reference. If I see the main page of the site, it is merely a blog and a forum, which would fail both our external links as well as our reliable sources guideline. If I see the COIBot report, I see only sporadic use of the link by regulars (not taking into account the antivandalism bots; COIBot tells me the top 10 of users is: ClueBot (26), 76.191.244.217 (18), 66.169.239.221 (11), VoABot II (8), 69.148.52.55 (7), Orhanghazi (5), 123.248.145.197 (5), 66.215.124.171 (5), WebCiteBOT (4), Gcaptain (3); that are 95 out of 198 recorded additions, one COI account (very old), and 5 IPs, a handful of bots, and one regular (?). I think that blacklisting this, and cleaning of mainspace would be in order. The rest can then be regulated via whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the only remaining mainspace links are on MV Maersk Alabama where my edit was reverted. HausTalk 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted the change to lake freighter which I added myself when I wrote that section of the article more than a year ago and still believe to be appropriate. It is not a link to anyone's personal "bloggy" opinion but to a video illustrating a type of accident and no more OR than any nonpublished image that we host on Wikipedia. Rmhermen (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider either whether the references are replaceable by something more reliable (that it is 'no more OR than any nonpublished image that we host on Wikipedia' is a bit a WP:WAXy argument), or whitelist the links in question. Is there any active spamming recently? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ben-engineering.com

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    buzznewslive.com

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 13:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    JamProject-LA.com

    Simply not necessary to use on this project. I thought I had requested it at the Global level, but must have been taken down at some point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ziarasafaris.com

    ziarasafaris.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

    Link is only used for advertising the safari-service, does not provide any additional information usefull for the articles where it was inserted. --R.Schuster (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    f2bbs.com

    This was requested for blacklisting around a year ago but it was archived without any action or discussion. The link has no use within any of our articles yet multiple SPAs continue to add it to the Fucked Company article. See WikiProject Spam listing as well as the history of Fucked Company going back the past year for relevant information. The Fucked Company history is nothing more than SPAs adding the links and being reverted as vandalism. ThemFromSpace 19:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mangafox.com

    A well known hub of copyright that has recently been in the anime and manga community news.[8] It is possibly the second large scanlation website after onemanga.com. While the website has somewhat cleaned up it act by removing manga scans of titles already released in English, there has been reports that the website contains several viruses, even an anti-virus virus.[9][10][11] I've and a couple of editors form WP:ANIME routinely remove links to Mangafox when we come across them or decided to check the external links special page. —Farix (t | c) 20:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    EUtimes.net

    Please would you add this to the blacklist. The site contains total nonsense eg [12]. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    nevaleeds.co.uk and car-leasing-guide.com

    Jminthorne (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    financeacar.co.uk

    Jminthorne (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    examiner.com

    examiner.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

    • Is there a way to restrict the blacklist for examiner.com to post-February 2009 articles? That website previously hosted The Baltimore Examiner, which was a moderately well-known newspaper before it was closed in February 2009. Now, there's some kind of garbage site there, which I assume is the target of the blacklist. We're having some editors wipe out references that are actually OK. See John Astin.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    carloscevola.com

    carloscevola.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 this website www.carloscevola.com from blacklist rating . This site contains extensive info about Offshore Jurisdiction.Carlo (the founder) of carloscevola.com actually wrote most of the content on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_company. The site has no intent to establish hits nor to promote the website or the company.Please remove from Spam listing, blocking this website means missing lots of info about Offshore jurisdiction from Wikipedia.Carlo's book the offshore jurisdiction guide is "Carlo Scevola, Offshore Jurisdictions Guide" . I would like to link this book on Wikipedia as it contains lots of informative content regarding Offshore Jurisdiction.

    I feel that the website has some good information on the subject. The site has detailed information on company formation in all major offshore company jurisdictions. As such, I think that the website should not be banned from Wikipedia.

    --Imdanielmario (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)ImdanielmarioImdanielmario (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)--[reply]

    afroradio.it

    afroradio.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

    Please remove this website www.afroradio.it from blacklist rating.The site is only a web radio amateur, contains only streaming music, many listeners do not understand why www.afroradio.it entered the blacklist! thanks afroradio webmaster— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.107.49 (talk • contribs)

    First, it is not listed here, but on meta. The reason can be found here, repeated and continued additions to wikis by, mostly, 1 IP. And since none of the additions were on it:Afro Radio or Afro Radio (the official link of the station would of course be a good link on the page itself, but neither exist, and I wonder if the station is notable enough for having an own page), but all to other pages linked to the genre of the music, they all fail, at least here on the en.wikipedia, our policies and guidelines.  Denied here, and  Defer to Global blacklist if you'd like to have it delisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    nisargadatta.co.cc

    This is a non-commercial site dedicated to a spiritual master. I was trying to add an external link to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisargadatta_Maharaj and was told that this domain is blocked. It may have happened because it is not a proper TLD and the root domain might be involved in some spam issues. Kindly remove my site from the blacklist. --Manu.hotmail (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Personal dedication sites do not meet WP:Reliable sources or WP:EL guidelines. No reason to whitelist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    tempsensindia.com

    Dear sir/mam, We are manufacturing company and we released technical notes for worldwide temperature instruments users and students for their proper guidance. So we tried to put some useful external links but our site was blocked. We have no intention for promoting our site. please unblock this site. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.4.98 (talk • contribs)

    "We have no intention for promoting our site"... ummm, no. We should take the opportunity to add
    because I overlooked them (gosh I'm sloppy). Would you like me to continue reviewing your domains? MER-C 06:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear MER-C, I haven't add thermowellworld.com, glassthermocouples.com, compensatingcables.net, marathonheater.in in the wikipedia ever. You can continue review our site and if you found any spam link you can block this site... but please unblock this once... give us a chance so we can contribute in a better manner. All the stuff i will send you first for reviewing then you add that knowledgeable articles in the wikipedia by yourself. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.4.98 (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "I haven't add thermowellworld.com, glassthermocouples.com" -- once again demonstrably false. MER-C 04:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry MER-C but i didn't do it, We are on shared network may be someone from my company put that link in the wikipedia, sorry again. I make sure this type of mistakes never happen again. Thanks

    myolie-wu.co.cc

    This is a fansite of Myolie Wu, it contains the latest Myolie Wu news, functions and photos. So it must be useful to all Myolie Wu fans in the world. The news are from Hong Kong sources and are translated into English, helpful for those who can't read Chinese, to let them up to date with Myolie Wu. I tried to put this website at Myolie Wu External links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myolie_Wu), but was told: "Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked." I hope the website can be removed from the blacklist.

     Not done per Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    The site subic-examiner.com is not affiliated with any unreliable news sources anywhere. It is part of an effort of practicing journalists in the Philippines, specifically the area of Subic Bay - once the site of a US naval base - to foster the growth of community journalism. If you ' examine' the site, this will be immediately obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigonzaga (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for the late reply (I was fully expecting someone else to do this) but how do you intend to use this site? MER-C 08:29, 25 April 2010 (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

    log by month

    Should we split up the blacklist log into monthly sections? It's already 300k. I would, but I can't. MER-C 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll archive shortly. --Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Archived most--Hu12 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was splitting up MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log into monthly sections. MER-C 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi!
    I agree, but please inform me before doing that, because I'd have to modify my log-searching tool.
    It would be nice, if you could do it somehow similar to meta. There should be one all-containing archive page like [27]. -- seth (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    duplicate entries in blacklist

    I was doing a scan of the blacklist and came across a handful of entries that are listed twice, and some that are both here and on the global blacklist.

    I can remove the duplicates here; but I wanted to ask before removing the entries that are both listed here and on global - to me, it's reasonable to remove the local entry if it's also on global; but wasn't sure if there was a reason for having the entries at both. Also, for those who have access to the global blacklist, I found a handful that are listed multiple times on global. Note in the lists that the entry for \bbestdissertation\.com\b is both listed twice locally and listed on global.

    Double on local

    \baprilcalendar\.net\b \bastrocytoma\.org\b \baugustcalendar\.net\b \bazotemia\.net\b \bbestdissertation\.com\b \bblack-cohosh\.org\b \bcalendaryear\.net\b \bcompartmentsyndrome\.net\b \bcure-tinnitus-guide\.blogspot\.com\b \bddrsdram\.net\b \bendstagekidneydisease\.com\b \bfamilyext\.net\b \bfinancet\.org\b \bfinancialdict\.org\b \bfindchalet\.com\b \bhonestevivere\.com\b \bhyperkalemia\.net\b \binfectiousmononucleosis\.org\b \blupus-erythematosus\.com\b \bmodifiedcarphotos\.com\b \bmotorpix\.com\b \bnintendo-wii-homebrew-unlock-hack\.blogspot\.com\b \boctobercalendar\.net\b \bornithine\.net\b \bparesthesia\.net\b \bpatio-covers\.com\b \bpaudarco\.org\b \bpernicious-anemia\.net\b \bradiculopathy\.net\b \btheubie\.com\b \bthyroidproblems\.org\b \bturmericbenefits\.com\b

    Both local and global

    \bafricacupofnationshighlights\.blogspot\.com\b \bbestdissertation\.com\b \bbestessay\.org\b \bbestessays\.ca\b \bbestessays\.com\.au\b \bbesttermpaper\.com\b \bcountryguidebook\.com\b \bcustom-essaywriting\.blogspot\.com\b \bdiscussionshome\.com\b \belectronicmusicfree\.com\b \bessaydot\.com\b \bessayontime\.com\b \bessaywriters\.net\b \blifesyrup\.com\b \bmedicanalife\.com\b \bmedicanatv\.com\b \bonline-sport-betting\.org\b \bpsalmtours\.com\b \bresearch-service\.com\b \bresumesplanet\.com\b \brushessay\.com\b \bslots-machines-online\.net\b \bsuperiorpapers\.com\b \bterm-paper-research\.com\b \btt-group\.net\b \bwikipediahatescheerleaders\.blogspot\.com\b

    Double on global

    \bcatatansiboyiiii\.blogspot\.com\b \beasyurl\.net\b \bhuaweie220\.com\b \bhuaweie220\.net\b \binmassage\.net\b \bis\.gd\b \bresearch-service\.com\b \bre-shui\.cn\b \bsuperiorpapers\.com\b \btr\.im\b \bvornesitzen\.de\b \bxr\.com\b \byy\.vc\b

    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi!
    I deleted the double entries at meta. You can do the same here. And you can also delete those local entries that are globally listed. The only disadvantage would be that if - at some time in future - a website get's unblacklisted at meta and should still be blocked in w:en (that's a rare case anyway) then one has to put it manually at en-wiki again. But that should not be a real problem. -- seth (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the entries that were duplicates on the local blacklist (leaving one entry for each item). Will cleanup the items that are both here and on Meta later tonight. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    COIBot down

    Due to power issues, the box that is running a.o. COIBot and the linkwatchers has been taken down until the power issues have been resolved. This means that there is a gap from last Saturday until that moment in the link-addition database, and that COIBot will not refresh any reports. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=369491317"