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
Dagrossla (talk | contribs)
49 edits
Dagrossla (talk | contribs)
49 edits
Line 401: Line 401:
{{Link summary|MovieReviewIntelligence.com}}
{{Link summary|MovieReviewIntelligence.com}}


10 months ago, Movie Review Intelligence made mistakes adding references in Wikipedia articles because it did not understand why the movie review information included in Wikipedia movie articles was not of a more professional order. Movie Review Intelligence did not understand the rules and regulations, including that Wikipedia editors are in charge of adding references in the movie articles. Movie Review Intelligence now understands. Movie Review Intelligence wishes to have an article written about it, and now does. Movie Review Intelligence would like to have its URL on in its article for the same reason that others do -- so that people can have the opportunity to learn more when they want to research the topic. Additionally, Movie Review Intelligence wishes for the movie editors to consider Movie Review Intelligence as a source of movie review information for individual movies. Movie Review Intelligence is relied on within the movie industry as a professional approach to movie reviews. The website has been written about in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, AP, CNN.com, et. al. Movie Review Intelligence hopes that the movie editors will take a moment to study the statistical methodologies used by the movie review aggregators quoted on this site so that they can select the most accurate approach. Movie Review Intelligence does not plan to spend additional time on Wikipedia, other than to untangle the past problem. CKatz appears to be the person who blacklisted Movie Review Intelligence. Movie Review Intelligence is not familiar with Wikipedia's code, jargon, format, and methodologies. Movie Review Intelligence apologizes for its lack of savoir-faire. David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence [[User:Dagrossla|Dagrossla]] ([[User talk:Dagrossla|talk]]) 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC) {{Done}}
10 months ago, Movie Review Intelligence made mistakes adding references in Wikipedia articles because it did not understand why the movie review information included in Wikipedia movie articles was not of a higher order. Movie Review Intelligence did not understand the rules and regulations, including that Wikipedia editors are in charge of adding references in the movie articles. Movie Review Intelligence now understands. Movie Review Intelligence wishes to have an article written about it, and now does. Movie Review Intelligence would like to have its URL on its article for the same reason that others do -- so that people can have the opportunity to learn more when they want to research the topic. Additionally, Movie Review Intelligence wishes for the movie editors to consider Movie Review Intelligence as a source of movie review information for individual movies. Movie Review Intelligence is relied on within the movie industry as a professional approach to movie reviews. The website has been written about in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, AP, CNN.com, et. al. Movie Review Intelligence hopes that the movie editors will take a moment to study the statistical methodologies used by the movie review aggregators quoted on this site so that they can select the most accurate approach -- the one with the least bias and distortion. Movie Review Intelligence does not plan to spend additional time on Wikipedia, other than to untangle the past problem. CKatz appears to be the person who blacklisted Movie Review Intelligence. Movie Review Intelligence is not familiar with Wikipedia's code, jargon, format, and methodologies. Movie Review Intelligence apologizes for its lack of savoir-faire and hopes that this entry provides all necessary information and satisfies the requirements for removal. Movie Review Intelligence is available to answer any questions and provide any additional background material. David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence [[User:Dagrossla|Dagrossla]] ([[User talk:Dagrossla|talk]]) 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC) {{Done}}


=Troubleshooting and problems=
=Troubleshooting and problems=

Revision as of 04:06, 26 August 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 – 381051117 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    trunkarchive.com

    PhotoFan76's contributions consist almost exclusively of creating new biographical articles for photographers whose sole common feature is that they are all represented by the media-licensing company http://trunkarchive.com; each article includes a link to a page from this site. I note that the account Trunkarchive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made similar edits, as has Photoarchive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and wonder if this is either a concerted promotional effort or some socking. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. Given all the notices they've failed to heed, I see no other way to keep this company from continuing to abuse Wikipedia for their own marketing purposes.
    Trusted, established editors who see an application for these links as a reliable source for some article can always request whitelisting of specific pages at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This still leaves 40+ potentially spammy articles to review for notability, conflict of interest and neutrality:
    1. Achim Lippoth
    2. Alex Cayley -- speedied 15/08/10 --RrB
    3. Andrew Bettles -- speedied 15/08/10 --RrB
    4. Anne Menke
    5. Bela Borsodi
    6. Bruno Dayan -- speedied 15/08/10 --RrB
    7. Chris Craymer
    8. Coppi Barbieri -- speedied 15/08/10 --RrB
    9. Doug Inglish
    10. Emma Summerton
    11. Enrique Badulescu -- speedied 15/08/10 --RrB
    12. Eric Frideen
    13. Fabio Chizzola
    14. François Halard
    15. Frédéric Lagrange
    16. Graeme Montgomery (photographer)
    17. Greg Kadel
    18. Horacio Salinas (photographer) -- speedied 21/08/10 --RrB
    19. Jason Schmidt (photographer)
    20. John Akehurst
    21. John Clang
    22. Kutlu
    23. Marc Hom
    24. Martyn Thompson
    25. Matt Jones (photographer)
    26. Matthew Brookes -- speedied 15/08/10 --RrB
    27. Melodie McDaniel
    28. Neil Stewart
    29. Pamela Hanson
    30. Patric Shaw -- tagged WP:CSD#G11, WP:CSD#A7 21/08/10 --RrB
    31. Robin Derrick
    32. Ronny Jaques
    33. Simon Emmett
    34. Simon Watson (photographer)
    35. Steve Hiett -- speedied 15/08/10 --RrB
    36. Straulino -- tagged WP:CSD#G11 16/08/10 --RrB speedy declined. Tagged for notability, COI
    37. Susanna Howe -- speedied 21/08/10 --RrB
    38. The Collective Shift
    39. Tim Barber
    40. Toby McFarlan Pond -- tagged WP:CSD#G11 16/08/10 --RrB speedy declined. Tagged for notability, COI
    41. Trunk Archive -- tagged WP:CSD#G11 16/08/10 --RrB speedy declined
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update on the above: I've left notes on the above 41 articles' talk pages but the articles themselves still need to be checked and tagged with {{coi}}, {{notability}} and, in some cases, maybe {{copyvio}}. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a list of articles previously deleted by others:
    1. Brigitte Lacombe -- earlier version was deleted as a copyright violation
    2. Carlotta Manaigo
    3. Carlton Davis
    4. David Slijper
    5. Derek Kettela
    6. Eric Traore (photographer)
    7. Igor Borisov (current article is about a Russian athlete, not a photographer)
    8. Jan Welters
    9. Josh Olins
    10. Lorenzo Bringheli
    11. Martien Mulder
    12. Michael Baumgarten (photographer)
    13. Nikolas Koenig
    14. Rennio Maifredi
    15. Sasha Eisenman
    Many of the deleted articles had copyright issues; the list of 40+ still-existing articles above should also be checked for copyright issues.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Other pages edited by one or more of the spammers; these should be checked for problems:
    1. Bruce Weber (photographer)
    2. Clang (photographer)
    3. Clive Arrowsmith
    4. Denis Piel
    5. Elaine Constantine
    6. Fabbio Chizzola
    7. Francesco Carrozzini
    8. Guy Aroch
    9. Harry Peccinotti
    10. Hedi Slimane
    11. Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin
    12. Jean Pigozzi
    13. Jerry Schatzberg
    14. Jock Sturges
    15. John C.L. Ang
    16. John Getz
    17. Kayt Jones
    18. Mary Ellen Mark
    19. Matthew Brooks
    20. Max Vadukul
    21. Mike Potter (makeup artist)
    22. Nick Knight (photographer)
    23. Norbert Schoerner
    24. Philip-Lorca diCorcia
    25. Rankin (photographer)
    26. Raymond Meier (photographer)
    27. Roxanne Lowit
    28. Terry Richardson
    29. Tierney Gearon
    30. Walter Chin
    31. Yelena Yemchuk
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    literateur.com

    Spammers

    Frequently spammed blog - MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given some of the contention over these links, I suggest also check-usering the accounts you've listed. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    References:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to point out that I have not added any links to literateur.com since I was first told about the COI rule. I cannot be held responsible for other people adding links to it. I would also like to refer you to the External links noticeboard where I have explained the matter in more detail and there has been a response that suggests that the link is relevant, useful and that this blacklisting is an overreaction. In fact it is quite clear that MrOllie has added the website here without informing me about this following an editing dispute where he deleted a link to the site made by someone else, which I find sneaky and underhand. I request that the site be taken off the blacklist. Let me point out that the magazine is not a 'fan page' for it has many articles, interviews, reviews, stories etc. It is not a 'personal blog' because it has at least fifty contributors. It also has interviews with Pulitzer prize winning poet Paul Muldoon, two leading academics who were knighted for their services to literature, the famous and award winning writers Will Self and Hanif Kureishi and former Poet Laureate Andrew Motion. It has published two new poems by Simon Armitage whose poems are on the GCSE syllabus. It regularly gets review copies from leading publishers including Penguin, Faber, Little Brown. It has connections with organisations funded by the Arts Council. In short it is a bank of literary information and to blacklist it counteracts Wikipedia's drive to provide useful information. --Youngpossum (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we remove sites or whitelist individual pages when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. We have a whitelist specifically for these types of requests.If such an editor asks to use a link to a specific page on your site, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and such a link may well be whitelisted.
    I blacklisted this domain because we had a problem with several IPs and user accounts, most of them single-purpose accounts, adding it in spite of repeated requests not to do so. I believe this site is a high-quality, self-published blog but not generally recognized as the literary magazine it claims to be. A Google News Archive search turns up zero relevant media references when I search for   "The Literateur" magazine;   a Google News Archive search for   "literateur.com"   is equally fruitless. Google Scholar and Google Books searches also return nothing.[2][3][4][5] I don't think this site meets our requirements to be a reliable source.
    The one possible exception: interviews with the subject of the article in which the interview is used as a reference. This might meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Even then, I think any decision to use an interview from such a site should be only made by trusted, established, neutral editors after a talk page discussion as to how that source uniquely benefits the article in providing information not otherwise available.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Mr. Ollie did not blacklist this domain. I did this after reviewing his request and the history of this domain on Wikipedia. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was given one request at the very beginning to stop adding links to the magazine and I have done so. As I have said before and will say again, I have not added links since the first request. I do not know about the others.
    There have been opinions expressed by two different people that the link be added back onto the page.
    It is not a 'self-published blog' since there are many, many contributors and a large proportion of these writers are professional academics and journalists who have contributed to publications such as The Guardian, London Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement. It is only a year old so it is hardly surprising that there is little reference to it out there yet. However I note that the magazine has already been referenced in academic dissertations about individual authors. Its youth and whether it's on some news archive does not affect the fact that there is a great deal of quality information about writers on the site that is unavailable elsewhere. An example would be that Will Self started out as a stand-up comedian. I could give many other examples if you care to hear them. Another point I wish to add is that this magazine is totally non-profit and there is no financial gain from links. All it does is link wikipedia users to information given by the authors themselves in interviews. Often these interviews are by far the most recent, the most detailed and sometimes the only one freely available online. I also note that no articles or creative works have never been linked, it has always been interviews. I find it difficult to understand why the writer himself speaking to someone is an unreliable source for information about that writer.--Youngpossum (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments:
    • I don't see a groundswell of support at the external links noticeboard, rather one editor that likes a particular link.
    • While your site might indeed be recognized in the future as a great resource, for now we have to go with what we can independently verify. Your site's not showing up in any of the tens of thousands of mainstream media publications and scholarly journals that Google indexes. If that changes, we can always revisit this decision in a year or two.
    • Perhaps you in particular did not add this link after the request to stop but looking at the records, I see a clear pattern of spamming your domain by someone despite repeated requests and admonitions to stop.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Two editors have voiced their opinion that the link to Mark Ford's interview ought to be included. Noone given me a real explanation as to why the only interview with him online (now one of two, the other being an audio file which someone has said is less of a reliable source than the literateur) should not be included in the page. The magazine would of course not be on Google Scholar as it is not a scholarly journal. It will of course not be on Google Books as it is an online magazine. I did not add those links and I will request site users/contributors to stop doing so with single-purpose accounts. It seems to me hugely counterproductive to block the domain altogether thus preventing more "legitimate" editors from using our interviews as a source considering that there is a great deal of information given by the writers themselves that is not available on any other resource. Surely the decision should be based more on whether the site has a reliable resource which is unavailable anywhere else than whether it shows up on google news archive. I would also point out that the magazine's interview consistently show up very high on google searches of the author's name plus interview. For example, 'Sir Frank Kermode interview' puts the magazine interview third. 'mark ford poet interview' puts us fifth. 'james shapiro interview' puts us second. Magazine reviews have also been quoted in promotional material for books and resources published by respectable publishers. For example British Literary Manuscripts Online links to us just below the Today programme, The Guardian Education Online and The Sunday Telegraph, putting us above the Reading Chronicle. It seems that they and countless publishers, writers and academics regard this as a respectable magazine and not a personal blog.
    Well I have made my case and if you insist on keeping it blacklisted anyway, I suppose there's nothing I can do unless some other editor bothers to interfere. Although this too seems strange as the onus should I feel be on the proposer to demonstrate why the links are useless. In any case thank you for actually listening to and responding to my points. --Youngpossum (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think blacklisting this magazine is an excessive response to the problem of its enthusiasts being ignorant of Wikipedia policy, and more interested in adding what they consider useful information on a topic they know about than they are in becoming general editors here. There is no way this respectable source of hard-to-find information about respected literary figures deserves to be blacklisted as if it were a trivial fansite or somebody's blog larded with adlinks. I have no connection with the magazine and my interest is in making Wikipedia better. If Wikipedia is only to be edited by oldbies who have a wide range of interests and contribute to lots of different articles, while anybody with a special interest or knowledge who comes here to add something he knows and cares about should be sharply rapped on the knuckles as a SPA, then Wikipedia will be impoverished. Questionic (talk) Here are 3 links from the contributions of the alleged spammers above. I find it easier to understand why people were eager to add them to the relevant articles than to understand why people interested in these authors should be deprived of a chance to read more about them in the LIterateur:

    Unfortunately, this edit will not be posted if I link to the articles that should surely be considered as part of the evidence. So, for "redactedbythisblacklist" you will have to type in "www.literateur.com" Questionic (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for bothering to get involved!--Youngpossum (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed it from the blacklist, at least for the time being. I don't want to start a wheel war, but it appears the blacklisting may have been premature. While the site is probably not a reliable source (to be debated elsewhere), that's not a reason for keeping it on the blackist and there doesn't appear to have been any sort of spam on the level that would warrant balcklisting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When I see a link being added by a large handful of IPs, and some unestablished accounts(some of which have a very likely conflict of interest), while discussion seems to point that it is not reliable, and generally not good, then that is generally enough reason to blacklist it. We see 8 IPs (some not too far away from each other) and some unestablished accounts; that is not something that can be stopped by blocking all the accounts (if all the IPs were in a closer range, and if the ranges were not widely used by others the question may have been different). Youngpossum said that they did not add the links anymore after the warning, however there are IP additions after Youngpossums' last additions. I would not call this blacklisting premature being shown that evidence, whatever is going on (self promotion, inappropriate use of a certain domain, even Joe Jobbing; even if some additions are good, we are not a linkfarm or an internet directory), if blocks are not helpful, and if page protection is not helpful (and both have their collateral damage), I would suggest to blacklist and let whitelisting of specific links do the job for some time.
    That being said, lets see what happens now, now that the link is of the blacklist. But if misuse continues mainly by IPs or unestablished accounts, I would suggest to swiftly place it back here and let the whitelisting take over. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's been established that there is a malicious intent behind the posting of the link and it has yet to be determined that the domain is totally useless in terms of reliability. Blacklisting should be a last resort and I'm not sure all avenues of discussion have been exhausted, though perhaps the short period of blacklisting may have deterred further disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this sane response. I would also like to point out that whether one is indexed on Google News Archive seems to me quite an odd way to decide whether somewhere is a reliable news source. I just submitted the site yesterday and I received an email today admitting it for inclusion and will be indexed in a few days. It appears that it's pretty easy to get one's site included and therefore inclusion on its archive doesn't seem to me to be a particularly good way of filtering out resources. All it shows is how google savvy you are. Either that or The Literateur easily makes the grade for being considered a reliable news resource by Google. But I find it hard to believe that they checked the site very thoroughly within a day...--Youngpossum (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    jackass3d.net

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 04:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    More spam accounts:
    More spam domains:
    Related sites:
    Possibly related site (on same server):
    Probably related accounts (submitted to digg.com by the same accounts):
    Possibly related account (shows up on some lists of "similar sites")
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added 10 domains: the spam domains and the related domains. I did not add the "possibly" and "probably" related domains for now due to insufficient evidence of a relationship. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    kittyfeet.com

    These constitute a homepage, a couple of blogs and a podcast site of a non-notable person (whose biography is currently at AfD). They have been spammed to a number of unrelated articles. The first two have a fair number of existing links on Wikipedia; I have removed a number of them manually but think it would be more helpful to blacklist these locally to prevent them being added once again. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Will anyone add these? Kindzmarauli (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing concerted linkspamming here. Have any warnings been given to any users about the links? I couldn't find any, but could have missed them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    batam.com

    Related domains

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 12:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    netechno.com

    Spam domain
    Possibly related domains
    Accounts

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Also:

    plus Added the reported spam domain - for now haven't added the "possibly related" domains. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    walking.dead.free.fr

    already blacklisted
    used to bypass blacklisting
    accounts

    Edit warring, 3RR, block evasion, sock puppetry, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    davidandgoliathworld.com

    link

    See most recent report at Wikipedia talk:WPSPAM#davidandgoliathworld.com

    SPA, COI, multiarticle linkspam. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    peregrintook.com

    Fansite that has been added repeatedly to Peregrin Took by the site's owner User:Mmontelione who showed defiance on his talk page when asked to refrain from it. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done This spam is being added only to one article by one user. It could be stopped by blocks or by page protection, and the user has been blocked for 31 hours. The domain does not need to be blacklisted. — GorillaWarfare talk 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    Pantheon.org

    Following a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, Encyclopedia Mythica was recently blacklisted. The premise of the argument for blacklisting was that the site contains gross misinformation, and pantheon.org/articles/e/eisa.html is cited as containing "total nonsense". As a result of the discussion, a bot was configured to purge references to the cite from our articles, and at least three AfDs were initiated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perendi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prende, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verbti.

    Now, I am certainly not an expert in this area, but there does not appear to be any objective evidence to support any of these actions. The content of Encyclopedia Mythica's article on Eisa is echoed by a fair number of books, one dating back as far as 1895. The nominator did mention that we once propagated deliberate falsehoods from the site, but no verifiable examples of such were cited. Unless empirical information to support these actions can be found, I move that we delist the site and attempt damage control of related bot activity.   — C M B J   21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because some entries on that site may be semi-correct doesn't of course mean it's a reliable source. They don't document their own sources in any way. As for the "Eisa" entry, I don't know what the person who made that judgment thought about it, but I can see at least one potential serious error: referring to Loki's "second wife" (according to other sources, there are two distinct traditions mentioning a different name of a wife each (along with different genealogies of Loki himself), but not a single tradition mentioning a sequence of Loki having two wives in succession). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And their entry on "Prende" (pantheon.org/articles/p/prende.html) certainly is a lot of nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, everything contained in the Encyclopedia Mythica's entries on Eisa and Prende has been echoed by multiple independent sources. Again, administrative action must be justified by empirical evidence, and every claim that this site is less than reliable remains unverifiable.   — C M B J   22:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't be bothered to point out all the contradictions between these sources above – only, for instance, that a "second wife" isn't the same as a "first wife", and 26 July isn't always a Friday. But in any case: to prove that this isn't a reliable source, we don't even need any particular errors. It's technically unreliable simply because it fails the criteria of academic standing, editorial review and documentation demanded by WP:RS. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Friday detail is not really relevant to this discussion since it isn't mentioned in the Encyclopedia Mythica entry, but even if it was, that would not be evidence of an error; it is entirely reasonable that a weekly pagan tradition would differ from (or perhaps coexist with) an annual Catholic day of feast. I have re-read the aforementioned Encyclopedia Mythica articles about four times each now, yet "second wife" is nowhere to be found. Are you perhaps mistaking one of the books for this site?   — C M B J   09:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this ad-supported website is an unreliable source cannot be overstated, and it is guilty of pumping misinformation all over the internet. The site is the bane of mythology articles on Wikipedia and, as we're usually one of the first Google hits on any given subject, we are doing the internet a service by maintaining a ban on this site. Just as an example, there is absolutely no source for any other wife of Loki outside of Sigyn (Angrboða is attested as simply mothering three children by him) and, further, there is no source for Loki having a daughter outside of Hel (who is attested as one of the three children mothered by Angrboða). Where then does this information stem from? It seems that someone has equated Loki with Logi, and that they've just ran with it (Glut is an anglicized form of Glöð) and presented it to the world as fact.
    A Google Books search turns up that this anglicization used in this manner appears in at least one of H. A. Guerber's (died 1929) works about Norse mythology (for example: [6]), where she is clearly combining heavy moralizing with fast and free treatment of attestations. Presumably, "Encyclopedia Mythica" got a hold of one of these works, took it at face value, and half-assedly slapped it up on their website, where it has been bouncing around ever since (and even spreading to recent non-scholarly publications, as Google Books indicates).
    In matters Norse, this is hardly the only example where "Encyclopedia Mythica" churns out misinformation for advertising dollars, in fact it gets much worse—they presents figures by the names of "Brono" (no reference provided—no Google Books hits), "Geirrendour" (where their article presents the theory that the Mothers of Heimdall and Daughters of Ægir are the same figures as simple fact), "Glaur" (no reference provided), and "Laga" (???) as deities in Norse mythology, whereas they seem to have similarly come from some other dubious source or, in cases like Brono and Laga, may have been derived from who knows where. They are certainly not found in Old Norse sources, as a quick look in the major Germanic mythology handbooks (Rudolf Simek, John Lindow, Andy Orchard) will indicate. On top of that, they present the Nordic Baroque and Rococo creations of Astrild ("In Norse mythology, Astrild is the goddess of love"—!) and Jofur (apparently removed) as Norse deities.
    However, these facts, at the very least, shows some serious confusion on the part of "Encyclopedia Mythica", and well illustrates how unreliable a source it is. Of course, this is ignoring how poor the quality is in the entries for figures who actually are attested. Every effort needs to be made to keep this terrible site blacklisted. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've read these discussions, and I think the answer is simple:  Defer to Whitelist. If you have specific links, from which specific information can be used following our policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:RS, etc.), then those links can be whitelisted (if on the whitelist a plethora of pages is whitelisted then maybe we could reconsider this). CMBJ, it seems above that you prove reliability of this site here by using other sources .. are those other sources then not by definition the ones you should use here on wikipedia .. obviously, there seems to be misinformation mixed in with the correct information (if I have a document that says that grass is green stuff, that grows on the inside of my office windows, drinks beer for lunch and can't swim, then obviously, it is right in saying that grass is green .. but the rest of the document is completely unverifiable, and I would even have to find another source to show that grass is actually green ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    michaelburns.net

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

    I am not sure why my domain was blacklisted. I am a Physicist (Michael Burns) presently a Visiting Scholar at Boston College ([7]), with over 50 scientific research articles published in major refereed scientific and engineering journals. My michaelburns.net domain is a personal website, however it does get linked to quite a bit as copies of many of my scientific research articles can be downloaded from michaelburns.net for free. Those scientific and engineering articles are authoritative sources used by others in my field. There are other technical materials on michaelburns.net that get occasionally linked, but the main point is that this website has no commercial aspects to it. My concern with it being blacklisted by Wikipedia is that blacklists tend to propagate without any vetting. I don’t care whether Wikipedia contains any links to my site, but I would like it not to be blacklisted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelJBurns (talk • contribs)

    fredlwm.iblogger.org

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

    I'm requesting a whitelisting of this specific subdomain of iblogger.org for use as an additional External link on Lynx (web browser). The site is maintained by Frédéric L. W. Meunier, and is linked to from the Lynx homepage (see http://lynx.isc.org/current/#other, under DOS/Win32. The second link, http://www.pervalidus.net/cygwin/lynx/, which is maintained by Mr. Meunier, redirects to the iblogger.org site.). This site is one of only two places I could find current stable releases of Win32 ports of the Lynx browser. The parent domain was blocked in December of 2008 (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist/Log/2008#December_2008) by Mike.lifeguard, after freewebtown.com was requested to be blacklisted on Dec. 5, 2008. It was included in a list of 117 domains with this explanation: "In addition, the following 117 domains are involved (after removing anything even remotely legitimate)". Thanks. Earthsound (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh .. this is the spam blacklist, basically,  Defer to Whitelist. I fail however to see how this would pass WP:EL, we are not an internet directory, and this does not exactly add a lot of non-includable information, except for a bit of a manual and the download links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    iwawaterwiki.org

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.15.93 (talk • contribs)

    Why? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Following my editing a series of articles on water, wastewater and environmental science subjects, the iwawaterwiki was backlisted. The premise of the argument for backlisting was that More than 66% of the placing and addition of this link was performed by one editor. As a result of these additions, a bot was configured to prevent the addition of more links to the iwawaterwiki.org.
    In order to explain these activities, I would like to introduce myself as the IWA WaterWiki Community Manager. The iwawaterwiki.org is an online resource aimed at the global water community. We have articles on all areas of water, wastewater and environmental science. Many of these articles are linked to related articles on Wikipedia, directing our users to useful content on the site. We wanted to create similar links on Wikipedia, so that people reading your articles can access related articles on the iwawaterwiki.org. We intend to target only those articles related to areas of water, wastewater and environmental science and will only be including links to useful content on our site. In summary, the reason why more than 66% of the placing and addition of this link was performed by one editor is that, as the IWA WaterWiki community manager, I am responsible for establishing links and disseminating our articles to the wider global water community.
    The addition of links to the iwawaterwiki.org on Wikipedia is in keeping with the Attributution Share-ALike policy of Wiki sites. In order to develop both of our resources, I would hope that the iwawaterwiki.org can be removed from the Wikipedia Blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.15.93 (talk • contribs)
    Hmm. Wel, first I would like you to read this guideline. And then you should really consider to read the warnings on you talkpage, which gave you enough time to realise that your links were not appropriate for wikipedia (the specific policies and guidelines are still linked from your talkpage). Since you still believe that your links should be here on wikipedia, and that you clearly don't understand why Wikipedia blocked your links, I am going to mark this discussion as no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    lmgtfy.com

    This is not a spam link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.75.50 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not blacklisted here, but at the meta blacklist. You would want to request removal there instead. However, I'll save you some time: this site is not a useful link on its own, and it can be used to work around the blacklisting of other links, so it will not be removed from the blacklist. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    literateur.com (removal request)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    This site was blacklisted without notice or discussion by MrOllie following an editing dispute with him. I would like to point out that I have not added any links to literateur.com since I was first told about the COI rule. The only thing I have done is to undo his deletion of a link to the site made by someone else. I cannot be held responsible for other people adding links to it. I would also like to refer you to the External links noticeboard where I have explained the matter in more detail and there has been a response that suggests that the link is relevant, useful and that this blacklisting is an overreaction. I request that the site be taken off the blacklist. Let me point out that the magazine is not a 'fan page' for it has many articles, interviews, reviews, stories etc. It is not a 'personal blog' because it has at least fifty contributors. It also has interviews with Pulitzer prize winning poet Paul Muldoon, two leading academics who were knighted for their services to literature, the famous and award winning writers Will Self and Hanif Kureishi and former Poet Laureate Andrew Motion. It has published two new poems by Simon Armitage whose poems are on the GCSE syllabus. It regularly gets review copies from leading publishers including Penguin, Faber, Little Brown. It has connections with organisations funded by the Arts Council. In short it is a bank of literary information and to blacklist it counteracts Wikipedia's drive to provide useful information. Let me repeat that I have NOT added any links to it since the first warning when I was a newbie naively thinking that if it's relevant, it's ok. I won't add any in the future without at least proposing it first in a discussion page. I request the site's removal from the blacklist.--Youngpossum (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To avoid spitting the discussion, please discuss removal for now in the section above where the addition is discussed. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to second the removal request. The discussion above seems to be getting little attention except from the person who proposed blacklisting and the person who did the blacklisting. Not one of the people accused of being a spammer was notified that their actions were being discussed here, nor were they given any opportunity to present their side of the case. This blacklisting was extremely premature, and it should be undone long enough for some consideration by uninvolved editors. Just to clarify, I am not among those accused of spamming, and I have no connection to the site in question aside from having seen an "External Links" discussion on a page where I was taking part in discussion of another topic. Questionic (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This request is redundant and moot. MER-C 08:01, 25 August 2010 (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.

    mynipples.org (removal request)

    This is not a spam link. The site is entirely about Nipples and Nipples Health. Why is this even tagged as spam? I only had one link I put on the Nipple page. You don't want me to put my link on it. Alright, I understand it, but why did you flagged this as spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.187.101.12 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    MovieReviewIntelligence.com (removal request)

    moviereviewintelligence.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

    10 months ago, Movie Review Intelligence made mistakes adding references in Wikipedia articles because it did not understand why the movie review information included in Wikipedia movie articles was not of a higher order. Movie Review Intelligence did not understand the rules and regulations, including that Wikipedia editors are in charge of adding references in the movie articles. Movie Review Intelligence now understands. Movie Review Intelligence wishes to have an article written about it, and now does. Movie Review Intelligence would like to have its URL on its article for the same reason that others do -- so that people can have the opportunity to learn more when they want to research the topic. Additionally, Movie Review Intelligence wishes for the movie editors to consider Movie Review Intelligence as a source of movie review information for individual movies. Movie Review Intelligence is relied on within the movie industry as a professional approach to movie reviews. The website has been written about in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, AP, CNN.com, et. al. Movie Review Intelligence hopes that the movie editors will take a moment to study the statistical methodologies used by the movie review aggregators quoted on this site so that they can select the most accurate approach -- the one with the least bias and distortion. Movie Review Intelligence does not plan to spend additional time on Wikipedia, other than to untangle the past problem. CKatz appears to be the person who blacklisted Movie Review Intelligence. Movie Review Intelligence is not familiar with Wikipedia's code, jargon, format, and methodologies. Movie Review Intelligence apologizes for its lack of savoir-faire and hopes that this entry provides all necessary information and satisfies the requirements for removal. Movie Review Intelligence is available to answer any questions and provide any additional background material. David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence Dagrossla (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    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

    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]
    Was this finished, Barek? --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I had become busy in the real world and forgot to complete this. By tomorrow, I should have time to do a fresh extract to update the lists, then do a final cleanup of the local blacklist based on the refresh. --- Barek (talk) - 20:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing, I've removed the following entries, which were also listed on the meta global blacklist:
    List of entries removed from local blacklist (already listed at meta global blacklist)

    • \bbootsluxury\.com\b
    • \bchristianlouboutinmy\.com\b
    • \bhandbagcom\.com\b
    • \b2010nbajerseys\.com\b
    • \b360yd\.com\b
    • \babercrombieandfitchuk\.com\b
    • \babercrombieandfitchusa\.com\b
    • \babercrombie-usa\.com\b
    • \badidas-kids\.com\b
    • \bafricacupofnationshighlights\.blogspot\.com\b
    • \baf-wholesale\.com\b
    • \banimefreak\.tv\b
    • \bapplicationessay\.net\b
    • \bb2bjersey\.com\b
    • \bbagsclothing\.com\b
    • \bbags-replica\.com\b
    • \bbestessay\.org\b
    • \bbesttermpaper\.com\b
    • \bbt-embroidery\.com\b
    • \bbuild-muscle-tips\.com\b
    • \bc2cjersey\.com\b
    • \bcameramarkets\.com\b
    • \bcasino-spielen\.biz\b
    • \bchangande\.com\.cn\b
    • \bcharmed80048436282250\.webs\.com\b
    • \bchaussures-nike\.org\b
    • \bchina-usb\.cn\b
    • \bchnknot\.com\b
    • \bclothes-wholesales\.com\b
    • \bcountryguidebook\.com\b
    • \bcure-acne-tips\.com\b
    • \bcustom-essaywriting\.blogspot\.com\b
    • \bdifferential-pressure-transmitter\.com\b
    • \bdiscussionshome\.com\b
    • \begsale\.com\b
    • \belectronicmusicfree\.com\b
    • \belectronics-store-china\.com\b
    • \bentrainbow\.com\b
    • \bessaydot\.com\b
    • \bessayontime\.com\b
    • \bessaywriters\.net\b
    • \bfat-loss-secret-tips\.com\b
    • \bfcnzz\.com\b
    • \bfcsgame\.com\b
    • \bgelinsoles\.cn\b
    • \bglobalc2c\.com\b
    • \bgoldspace\.cc\b
    • \bgolfclubs365\.com\b
    • \bheatsinks\.cc\b
    • \bhonnypower\.com\b
    • \bhypnosis-secret-tips\.com\b
    • \bjerseyonsale\.com\b
    • \bjuicyjewelrysale\.com\b
    • \blasercuttingmachine\.cn\b
    • \bleddisplays\.cn\b
    • \blg668\.com\b
    • \blifesyrup\.com\b
    • \blights-china\.com\b
    • \blkkreplicas\.com\b
    • \blose-weight-secret\.com\b
    • \bmaplestorymesos4u\.com\b
    • \bmbtmvp\.com\b
    • \bmetin2yang\.cc\b
    • \bmillennium1000\.net\b
    • \bncpdtoo\.info\b
    • \bnikecoo\.com\b
    • \bok1225\.com\b
    • \boka1225\.com\b
    • \bokaygoods\.com\b
    • \bonline-sport-betting\.org\b
    • \bpaypalgame\.com\b
    • \bposhcraze\.info\b
    • \bpsalmtours\.com\b
    • \bregistry-cleaner-guide\.com\b
    • \brenzeba\.com\b
    • \breplicas8\.com\b
    • \breplicawatchesmart\.com\b
    • \bresearch-service\.com\b
    • \bresumesplanet\.com\b
    • \brushessay\.com\b
    • \bsdhongda\.net\b
    • \bsf39\.com\b
    • \bshoemachine\.cc\b
    • \bshoemkt\.com\b
    • \bshuangdan\.com\b
    • \bslots-machines-online\.net\b
    • \bstop-sweating-tips\.com\b
    • \bstoptinnitustips\.com\b
    • \bsuperiorpapers\.com\b
    • \bteennick80048436282250\.webs\.com\b
    • \bterm-paper-research\.com\b
    • \bthebrandshoes\.com\b
    • \btohongkong\.cn\b
    • \btozc\.net\b
    • \btt-group\.net\b
    • \buggcardy\.org\b
    • \bugglist\.com\b
    • \bviviennejewellery\.co\.uk\b
    • \bwealthyaffiliate\.com\b
    • \bwholesale-cheap\.com\b
    • \bwikipediahatescheerleaders\.blogspot\.com\b
    • \bwriters\.ph\b
    • \byouareanidiot\.org\b
    Should I also add this removal to the log?
    I also have a refreshed list of entries that are listed multiple times on the global meta blacklist (I don't have admin access over there to remove duplicates myself)
    List of entries listed multiple times at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

    • \bbootsluxury\.com\b
    • \bchristianlouboutinmy\.com\b
    • \bhandbagcom\.com\b
    • \bchristianlouboutinshoessale\.com\b
    • \bherve-leger\.com\b
    • \bhervelegerweb\.com\b
    • \bmbt-shoes-discount\.com\b
    • \bvertuexclusiveshop\.com\b
    • \bvibram-five-finger\.com\b
    • \bvibram-fivefingerss\.com\b
    • \b100bhshoe\.com\b
    • \b102bhshoe\.com\b
    • \b104allbyer\.com\b
    • \b106fashion4biz\.com\b
    • \b108akshoe\.com\b
    • \b109elife\.com\b
    • \b110maidi2008\.com\b
    • \b112batsale\.com\b
    • \b114batsale\.com\b
    • \b116kicksquality\.com\b
    • \b118onseeking\.com\b
    • \b120e2to\.com\b
    • \b122luxuryeasy\.com\b
    • \b124green2style\.com\b
    • \b1268000trade\.com\b
    • \b128chicmalls\.com\b
    • \b129elife\.com\b
    • \b130e4cn\.com\b
    • \b132wanderfulshopping\.com\b
    • \b134bbbshoe\.com\b
    • \b136salesuper\.com\b
    • \b138takeofdream\.com\b
    • \b140newflybuy\.com\b
    • \b142newflybuy\.com\b
    • \b144mesoso\.com\b
    • \b146steezecloth\.com\b
    • \b14wowhotsale\.com\b
    • \b16wowhotsale\.com\b
    • \b18ecartshopping\.biz\b
    • \b20uspopularbiz\.com\b
    • \b22etradinglife\.com\b
    • \b24vipshops\.org\b
    • \b26wowcool\.org\b
    • \b28plzzshop\.com\b
    • \b2fashion-long-4biz\.com\b
    • \b30plzzshop\.com\b
    • \b32goladymall\.com\b
    • \b34coolforsale\.com\b
    • \b36overstockes\.com\b
    • \b38sbbshoe\.com\b
    • \b40vipmalls\.com\b
    • \b42vipmalls\.com\b
    • \b44netetrader\.com\b
    • \b46tqshoes\.com\b
    • \b48tntshoes\.com\b
    • \b4fashion-long-4biz\.com\b
    • \b4uaf\.com\b
    • \b50kogogo\.com\b
    • \b52kogogo\.com\b
    • \b54shopperstrade\.com\b
    • \b56goflywire\.com\b
    • \b58fashion-sell\.com\b
    • \b60shoppingtime\.us\b
    • \b62shoppingtime\.us\b
    • \b64iseeshoe\.com\b
    • \b66foruping\.com\b
    • \b68muyuo\.com\b
    • \b6elivestyle\.com\b
    • \b70seekjersey\.com\b
    • \b72bccloth\.com\b
    • \b74domchisport\.com\b
    • \b76domchisport\.com\b
    • \b78ebuyings\.com\b
    • \b80ebuyings\.com\b
    • \b82elivebuy\.com\b
    • \b84stefsclothes\.com\b
    • \b86itemtolive\.com\b
    • \b88itemtolive\.com\b
    • \b8cheapmaket\.com\b
    • \b90ccshoper\.com\b
    • \b92etootoo\.com\b
    • \b94streetcandy\.org\b
    • \b96minewear\.com\b
    • \b98myyshop\.com\b
    • \baj2u\.com\b
    • \ballspymonitor\.com\b
    • \bbalmainboots\.com\b
    • \bbestsales4u\.com\b
    • \bbestvibram\.com\b
    • \bbootsshop2010\.com\b
    • \bbuyvertureplica\.com\b
    • \bcheap-air-jordan\.cn\b
    • \bchesssoul\.com\b
    • \bchristian4sale\.com\b
    • \bchristianlouboutinmall\.com\b
    • \bchristian-louboutin-sandals\.com\b
    • \bchristianlouboutinshoestore\.com\b
    • \bcircuitocerradotelevision\.com\b
    • \bdensitygs\.com\b
    • \bdensitygs\.info\b
    • \bdunk2u\.com\b
    • \becwarmboots\.com\b
    • \bedhardybazar\.co\.uk\b
    • \be-lv\.net\b
    • \bemoncler\.com\b
    • \beshoppingluxury\.com\b
    • \bfivefingervibram\.com\b
    • \bgetsnet\.com\b
    • \bgodswmobile\.com\b
    • \bgouggs\.com\b
    • \bhardingsoft\.com\b
    • \bhervelegernet\.com\b
    • \bhervelegersale\.com\b
    • \bhiebay\.com\b
    • \bhoteldeals\.ae\b
    • \bidevlite\.com\b
    • \bjimmychoocom\.com\b
    • \bjordandi\.com\b
    • \bkissuggboots\.com\b
    • \bkitdetox\.com\b
    • \blinksoflondonstore\.com\b
    • \blouboutinsales\.net\b
    • \bmanoloblahnikcom\.com\b
    • \bmax-sky\.com\b
    • \bmbtforcheap\.com\b
    • \bmenorca-airport\.com\b
    • \bmonclercom\.com\b
    • \bmonclerjacketstock\.com\b
    • \bmylouboutinstore\.com\b
    • \bnbajs\.com\b
    • \bnewgoing\.com\b
    • \bnikempire\.com\b
    • \bnike-star-shoes\.com\b
    • \bourlouisvuitton\.com\b
    • \bphoneworth\.com\b
    • \bpiketrade\.com\b
    • \bqqtwo\.com\b
    • \breplicaestore\.us\b
    • \bsellvibram\.com\b
    • \bshoes\.vc\b
    • \bshoppingherveleger\.com\b
    • \bsilver-tiffany\.com\b
    • \bsoftwarewikipedia\.com\b
    • \bsouthfloridatelecom\.com\b
    • \bsupplyedhardy\.com\b
    • \bsweatboots\.com\b
    • \btiffanyhot\.com\b
    • \btiffanyou\.com\b
    • \btn4bags\.com\b
    • \btobuybattery\.com\b
    • \btopvibram\.com\b
    • \btopvibramfivefingers\.com\b
    • \btotalscreenrecorder\.com\b
    • \bugg2u\.net\b
    • \buggsky\.co\.uk\b
    • \bup2ugg\.com\b
    • \bvibramfive-fingers\.com\b
    • \bvibramfivefingersweb\.com\b
    • \bvibramstore\.com\b
    • \bvibramweb\.com\b
    • \bvipwomenshop\.com\b
    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! The deleted entries at w:en should be logged.
    I began at meta with deleting. I'm at "aj2u" now. Rest will be done later. -- seth (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    COIBot - LinkSaver

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

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

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

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

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

    Things that I am working on to add:

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

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

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=381051117"