Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 14:46, 14 April 2009 (→‎easymoneytechniquesonline.com: added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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 – 283788825 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    nonciclopedia.wikia.com

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

    • There are four links, all form Uncyclopedia where this and other language uncyclopedias are discussed. Actually I would think that none of them are notable, and could safely be removed from that article, but that is just my view. Right now I see no evidence of abuse. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cross wiki spamming;
    Might need looking into?--Hu12 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    theclassicalshop.net

    theclassicalshop.net: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.theclassicalshop.net

    A commercial download site for classical music, see post at WikiProject Spam and multiple links to their download site from music and related articles. In some cases articles have many different "samples" added to "external links" -- all of these downloaded from the one same site. DIFF 1 DIFF 2.

    FT2 (Talk | email) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Additional information needed :
    Can you provide some diffs showing these links were spammed? I spot-checked 6 articles and found the links were all added by regular editors with solid contribution histories. --A. B. (talk • contribs)
    Here's the linking report:
    I see just one editor adding many of these links, but when I look at his edit history, it looks like he's doing this as an article builder, not a spammer.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know for sure what criteria are used for identifying "spam" or "spammer". But when a commercial site's download section is linked 6 or 7 times in a single article, by a single person, that seems to constitute spamming to me. When that's done across multiple articles, then it seemed appropriate to blacklist the site as being used for spam purposes. In other words, it's unlikely to be appropriate to add an external link to this site's download section (or indeed the site itself), and unlikely there would be a legitimate need for such a link. I wasn't so much assessing his wider editing, just the website (or its download section) as a repeatedly added external link. What criteria are you looking to find? FT2 (Talk | email) 23:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    porn site referral spam

    70.81.9.135 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    An IP just added a bunch of links to porn star articles in the form of:

    • join.kobetai.com
    • join.clubamyried.com
    • join.pornstars-ambermichaels.com
    • join.transexualstarr.com
    • join.amberpeachraw.com
    • join.clubangelcassidy.com
    • join.clubangeldark.com

    followed by long referral codes.

    Can some regex guru figure out a way to block such links without blacklisting the entire site? I think these are "official" sites.

    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could blacklist track/MTA5MzU2OjM6 as that fragment seems to be in all the links. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you or someone else more knowledgeable either do this or else show me how to do it? I'm good at plain-vanilla blacklisting (i.e., bexample.\com\b) but not the advanced stuff. I don't understand regex -- I just plagiarize what others have done.
    Also, I can't clean up porn-related pages (this is a shared computer and it's not wise for me to go to those pages); if there's any of this junk still out there, can someone remove it? Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    lyricstranslations.com

    1. lyricstranslations.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 domain hosts copyright violations ; that being translations of works into English; and yes these translations are copyrighted and held by the original copyright holder. The links continue to be inserted into We Don't Wanna Put In, such as this, even after I have posted on the talk page that it is linkvio. As this is not a reliable source for info (it's a blog), and as editors keep inserting this linkvio, we need to treat it as spam, and block the whole domain from being linked to from WP. --Russavia Dialogue 02:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not clear from what has been asserted that the links are contrary to WP:LINKVIO. The blacklist sledgehammer should not be used to prevent insertion of links to a single article, absent a clear showing that the site hosts massive copyvio. There is no linkspam. These are translations which are presumably copyrighted by the translator, I cannot tell from looking at the site if they are violations. There is difference of opinion as to "proof" required to allow linking, the policy at WP:LINKVIO only requires avoiding linking to known violations, there is a guideline which suggests "reasonable certainty" of no violation and it is not clear to me what level of consensus this enjoys, nor is "reasonable certainty" defined. However, if lyricstranslations.com is highly visible, we can generally assume freedom from massive copyvio, because they would be quickly taken down. (That's a rebuttable assumption, but it would take specific evidence, such as the site being hosted in some place where they are immune to legal attack.) The site does not appear to be a blog. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contrary to Abd's assertion the blacklist may iondeed be used if a site is overlinked and looks likely to violate policy. In the first instance, though, I would advise you to simply remove the links; spammers will typically edit war over this, and that tends to be unambiguous. Sites of unproven reliability hosting lyrics of unproven copyright status are not apprporiate as links, whether or not they are appropriate for blacklisting. Blacklisting is a frequent result of the site owner's determination to have such links, and that is not usually in any way controversial. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    matthewkeegan.com

    These sites are clearly not reliable sources and yet according to an incident at WP:COIN they keep appearing in various articles. Long term abuse despite repeated warnings - would like the sites blacklisted so we can begin cleanup (please note result at WP:COIN also). -- samj inout 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you considered blocking the user? Stifle (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    atcoftexas.com

    I can't figure out just what's going on here yet with these two users, nor can I be sure what to think of the site they are linking to. At first glance it appears to be an attempt to misdirect traffic intended for the legitimate Autism Treatment Center of Texas website to a nearly illegible spoof site replacing the .org with .com. I suspect this user is only beginning and would like him to realize that he can't outmaneuver us.

    Diffs:

    This user seems to be making some good edits to Wikipedia mixed in with the links to the phony ATCT website. Soap Talk/Contributions 17:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good catch!
    Domains:
    Additional accounts:
    Possibly related domains:
    Spam articles:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    givemeknol.com

    Hi. This isn't precisely spamming, but it's a link to be assiduously avoided, as they are a website Vietnam (evidence suggests) hosting complete copies of copyrighted text with no indication of licensing. I have removed all links from Wikipedia under WP:ELNEVER and WP:C. They have issued from various IP addresses, although they may be a single contributor. They all come out of Vietnam. (While I'm an administrator, I would never dream of editing it myself, as I don't even know what regex is.) :) If there's a better place to request some kind of blacklisting of this one, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Accounts:
    Domains:
     Defer to Global blacklist
    Thanks for the report!
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for locating it at a better place. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    khwajagharibnawaz.net

    Persistent dynamic IP spam. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 06:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    psychology.comoj.com

    This says it all. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 06:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    minus Removed here for blacklisting at Meta.
     Defer to Global blacklist since there's been as much or more spam on Wikibooks, too. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    leighlife.com

    Link, which mostly contains a forum and wiki has been repeatedly added to Leigh, Greater Manchester. Today it has been added three times, most recently by User:Auntie Pie Eater who has made direct threats on the user's page to keep reinstating the link if it is ever removed. We should not tolerate such action or threats against Wikipedia and I propose that the site be blacklisted immediately. --TimTay (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This spamming has now turned into an edit war. See revision history - the users above is carrying out the threat to disrupt Wikipedia. Stop them! --TimTay (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The site in question is recruiting members of the site to add the link back: www.leighlife.com/index.php?topic=12363.msg206290#new
    The site seems to be a community networking site with a forum and its own Wiki - as a whole, it clearly fails WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Add in the activity on its site to encourage others to spam the link, the result is that I support blacklisting this one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Site has been blacklisted locally by WilliamH (talk · contribs); issue resolved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    ssnano.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    indiafm.com, bollywoodhungama.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    sdub3.blogspot.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    itrunsonlinux.com, hdtvinfo.eu, mazda6news.blogspot.com

    Domains:

    • Google AdSense ID: 2581535989110307

    Accounts:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    hugeurl.com

    Not a spammer, but a recently-created URL redirector that's being promoted elsewhere. Besides the usual concerns about concealing spam, it deliberately creates really obnoxious redirection URLs that shouldn't be used here. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also: freakinghugeurl.com -same deal. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Added {{LinkSummary}} templates for reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    corecapllc.com

    Accounts:

    Deleted material:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur D. and Lynda C. Davis Trust domains

    Domains:

    Related domains:

    • see www.advertizzing.com


    Account:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    nyingmainstitute.com

    Repeated article spam.

    Domain:

    Articles:

    Accounts:

    There are some links in existing articles that may be legitimate. I also think there may be future legitimate white-list requests that should be reviewed with an open mind. Nevertheless, the broad domain itself should remain on the blacklist until the partisans of the link can adhere to our editorial guidelines as well as engage in dialog as opposed to ignoring warnings --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    shado-x.com

    Domain:

    • Google AdSense ID: 4080044656693728

    Accounts:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also 71.174.188.197 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). I already blocked the main range but they're evading so I've added this to the blacklist and logged. Not sure what needs to be done with this report so I'll let somebody else handle that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added by Rjd0060 as noted above.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They are now using shadox.com (without the dash). Can you take care of this? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added additional domain: shadox.com --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    humansfuture.org

    Domain:

    • Google Adsense ID: 2308142672702832

    Accounts:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Domain:

    Used by User:Atimetraveler; identical profile to above, URL links to "humansfuture" site. --Ckatzchatspy 10:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    nemoinfo.com

    Article spam:

    Domain:

    Account:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    gdoit.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Whaddaya Gonna Do About It? Productions

    Article and link-spam:

    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

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    aircraftcompare.com

    Includes the removal of other, legitimate links. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    benovarghese.com

    Spam domains:

    Related domains:

    • Google AdSense ID: 5494979659262162

    Accounts:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    xpressmovers.com

    Domains:

    Also abused:

    • This is a self-published article site. I will write up a separate entry for it

    Related domains:

    Promotional article:

    Accounts:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ideamarketers.com

    ideamarketers.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 for self-published articles, somewhat akin to ezinearticles.com. Inherently unreliable for encyclopaedic purposes.

    ideamarketers.com been used by to market xpressmovers.com (the subject of another blacklist request)

    Unrelated to that, ideamarketers.com also been spammed by sockpuppets of JCC Friends, a suspected puppeteer. JCC Friends may or may not be related to these other disputes and discussions:

    As it related to this entry, here are the relevant socks adding links to articles all authored by the same person and associated with JCC Friends:

    Other links used:

    and a number of Google Books search results pages.

    Other, unrelated spammers adding ideamarketers.com links:

    See also:
    See also:
    This spammer may have several hundred related domains.[6]
    See also:
    • Another self-published articles site

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    kriyayogamission.org

    kriyayogamission.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

    Subharthee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    This user has again added a website that had been blacklisted previously under different URLs.

    • The latest spamming: [7]
    • The same user's previous spamming: [8]
    • That previous website he added, yogakriya.blogspot.com, along with kriyayogain.com, and kriyayoga.org.in, have all been blacklisted. All were the same as this new one, kriyayogamission.org.
    • These are the diffs to the previous reports which I filed last year on his other URLs: [9], [10], which resulted in the others being blacklisted.

    - Priyanath talk 04:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    afterelton.com

    afterelton.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 site is being used (among other uses) to identify people as gay or as having gay relatives, etc. See for instance Special:Contributions/Shojego. Looks like clear BLP violations. We still have a lot of links to the site. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is polemical and not an appropriate source; it also seems to be subject to abuse by the accounts you list. This will result in some disgruntlement if we add it, but it is clearly not somethign we should be linking widely, if at all. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ohio-put-in-bay.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 site has constantly been spammed at Put-in-Bay, Ohio and South Bass Island by a range of IPs and the occasional new editor; see a few recent examples of the dozens of occurrences here, here, here, here, and here. Extended discussion at Talk:Put-in-Bay, Ohio has opposed the inclusion of this link. I've repeatedly semiprotected Put-in-Bay, but spamming resumes there as soon as the semiprotection is off; meanwhile, with no semiprotection at South Bass Island, spamming continues relentlessly. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    tengatango.com

    tengatango.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

    Company selling masturbation aids, and a longterm spammer of Tenga (masturbation toy). See Talk:Tenga (masturbation toy). My attention was drawn to this a month ago, here, whereupon I sprotected the article for a month. I could sprotect it longer, but don't see why I should constrain well-intentioned editors in order to keep out one spammer. And I also can't imagine how adding a link to "tengatango.com" to any other article could be to the benefit of WP. -- Hoary (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    atbgaming.blogspot.com

    Spam accounts


    Spam domains


    Related domains


    Other prizerebel.com spam accounts

    Probably unrelated:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    genxglow.com

    Domain:

    • Adsense ID: 6458331542266693
    • Note this canvassing: www.genxglow.com/forums/glowsticking/discussion/glowsticking-article-wikipedia-13218/

    Related domains:

    Accounts (just a partial list):

    Reference:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    digitalspy.co.uk


    easymoneytechniquesonline.com

    • Google Adsense ID: 9407738031236590

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    thepickupwiki.com

    redirects to:
    • Note this is egregiously spammy edit.

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    thecreativeplanet.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Modelinia.com

    modelinia.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

    • Use of SPAs like this to spam articles to garner traffic for their site, which - although flashy - is mostly copyrighted videos taken from other sites and info gleaned from Wiki articles, which makes it worse now that the site is being used as refs.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    wirelessbollinger.com

    wirelessbollinger.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

    Massive dynamic IP spam. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    JimmyWales.org

    jimmywales.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 An attack Jimmy Wales page which is being added to Jimmy's User page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks like a generic "foosucks.org" site, such sites are of no use to Wikipedia and are not appropriate in articles, especially WP:BLP articles. I would suggest that anyone edit-warring to add such a link is being a dick. Is it being added by anons or by logged in users? If the latter then perhaps the better solution would be to block them for trolling, as their hero Larry Sanger advised. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    aceshowbiz.com

    Aparently someone spammed this a bunch at some point in the past. The site contains useful information, including interviews that would pass RS. A couple of requests have been made for its removal.[11]][12] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Also, Guy says it a perrenial request, which seems another reason to remove it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dogs.info

    I don`t see a reason why this valuable dog resource should be blacklisted ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.48.193 (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It was blacklisted due to a spamming campaign. Care to explain which article would benefit from linking to it? Stifle (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Background
    1. Original blacklisting log entry.
    2. Removal request from one of the spammers: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2008#Dogs.info
    3. Subsequent blacklist entry for additional domains added to the list 6 December.
    I'll dig around and see if I find any more information on this blacklisting. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I found:
    First, here are 36 overlooked, related domains we did not blacklist before; they all share the same Adsense revenue stream:
    1. absbelts.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.absbelts.com
    2. africanamericanpersonals.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.africanamericanpersonals.com
    3. apricotkerneloil.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.apricotkerneloil.com
    4. baltimoremdjobs.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.baltimoremdjobs.com
    5. barcelonanewspapers.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.barcelonanewspapers.com
    6. bestemulators.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.bestemulators.com
    7. bestmileagecar.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.bestmileagecar.com
    8. bestnightlife.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.bestnightlife.com
    9. bicyclestands.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.bicyclestands.com
    10. birthdaycakecandles.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.birthdaycakecandles.com
    11. bodybuildingsuppliments.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.bodybuildingsuppliments.com
    12. bubblebars.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.bubblebars.com
    13. bulldogposters.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.bulldogposters.com
    14. cakeflowers.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.cakeflowers.com
    15. cartoonsanta.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.cartoonsanta.com
    16. celebritygolfers.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.celebritygolfers.com
    17. cheapestplates.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.cheapestplates.com
    18. chelmsfordcollege.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.chelmsfordcollege.com
    19. chocchipcookies.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.chocchipcookies.com
    20. chocolatechunks.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.chocolatechunks.com
    21. cocoamass.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.cocoamass.com
    22. commoncoldtreatments.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.commoncoldtreatments.com
    23. cozumelbar.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.cozumelbar.com
    24. doggieboots.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.doggieboots.com
    25. dot.us: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.dot.us
    26. fastestservers.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.fastestservers.com
    27. harryhills.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.harryhills.com
    28. italianhampers.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.italianhampers.com
    29. lancashireheeler.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.lancashireheeler.com
    30. melonsoup.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.melonsoup.com
    31. ml63.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.ml63.com
    32. northcreekgolf.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.northcreekgolf.com
    33. philtufnell.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.philtufnell.com
    34. samandamandamarchant.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.samandamandamarchant.com
    35. vitamincsupplements.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.vitamincsupplements.com
    36. worldvolcanoes.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.worldvolcanoes.com
    None of these sites appears to have any useful, reliable content.
    Second, I spotchecked a couple of the sites blacklisted earlier; one of them, barneydinosaur.com, blatantly violates Wikipedia's GFDL license by reproducing our content without any attribution. I wonder how many of the other sites are also scraper sites? (I didn't see scraped Wikipedia content in a brief, 30-second check of dogs.info.)
    Should we blacklist these additional domains? Also, what should we do about the copyright violation? Dog.info? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree with blacklisting all of the above and declining to unblacklist dogs.info. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    stateuniversity.com

    This site has college and university rankings which are objective (based off of test scores, student-teacher ratios etc given by the government), and completely reliable. I have no idea why it is blacklisted, since US News and other college ranking sites (with arguably less credible/objective ranking processes) are ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.27.125 (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It was blacklisted for spamming. How can we be sure the spamming won't restart if it's unblacklisted? Stifle (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't know that. Thanks. Could a solution be to un-blacklist just the page that has the list of rankings, or would the spamming issue still arise? 76.182.27.125 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can request that one or a small number of articles be whitelisted over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, although requests from new or anonymous users are often declined. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    scoopmill.com

    I'm sorry for possibly violating the external weblink policy - that was not my intent at all! Having said that, I still think ScoopMill should be included on the pages for Fort Mill, Tega Cay and Indian Land, SC. The site is an informational website which includes information regarding governmental agencies, churches, restaurants, realtors, civic organizations and local events/news. It also provides a calendar of events for those towns. It seeks to be THE place where people can find daily, up-to-date information about Fort Mill, Tega Cay and Indian Land. The information provided is for residents, newcomers and those considering a relocation to the area. Again, I apologize if it seems as though I was spamming this site - my intent was merely to allow those seeking information about FM, IL and TC to find another resource for valuable information about those towns. Thanks for your consideration. Jaynee7283 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That site is not on the spam blacklist, but is on User:XLinkBot's revert list which means if it's added by a new user, it will be reverted. Why not propose the addition of the link on the article talk pages, explaining why it would benefit the article? Stifle (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When the link was removed from the article, I did post there on the Talk page the same information that I posted here, and then followed up here when I was told the link was listed here. Of course, even as I posted in both places I feared I would be seen as a spammer for vehemently defending the website as a bona fide site worthy of inclusion! In any event, my hope is that the link will be allowed to be reinstated as I feel it's a good resource for folks looking for more info about Fort Mill. 67.197.145.156 (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    activerain.com/groups/fairfieldvictoriablog

    Pleas add the following link to your white list, I am the original content writter and the subject is for public review and updated on a regular basis Fcarver (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Please take a look at these stndards:
    It's not clear to me how your blog meets our standards.
    As for the activerain.com domain, I see it's been a source of real trouble for us before, in spite of request that activerain.com personnel and/or realtors stop spamming us. See:
    I see we even had a spam article, ActiveRain, that was deleted 5 times.
    I don't see that this domain was ever blacklisted, but given the history and the content, I'm surprised it wasn't. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this domain has, in fact, been blacklisted.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    pokerverdict.com

    Please remove this useful website from the blacklist. I had the following conversation with the person who originally suggested that the website be blacklisted:

    This discussion originally took place here.

    You think that Poker Verdict is an unreliable source? They have some useful information, especially on players; the biggest hurdle is proving their reliability, though. It might be wise to contact them to determine how and where they get their information from, etc. Gary King (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I think they are generally a reliable source. But they created nine spam articles last year for the "November Nine", which they used solely to spam their website as a "reference", basically only referencing that the person made the final table, which is an obvious fact available everywhere. The company that owns them has several other publications/websites which they have spammed here. So... while the site seems okay in general, their egregious single-purpose spamming is way over the spam line. 2005 (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well the website is blacklisted, so I was going to use it for a few articles but then noticed that it is blacklisted. Do you think it's safe to remove it from the blacklist? There are other ways of preventing people from adding the same URL over and over again; for instance, their accounts can be blocked, or the articles in question can be semiprotected—which might be more effective if only a small number of articles are being bombarded with these URLs. Gary King (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not object to it being unblacklisted. It was just a large pain at the time, because these guys are shameless, and like I said, some of their other sites are blacklisted. I suppose it would be fine to unblacklist it, but blacklist again if they get too spammy again in the future. 2005 (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    sermonaudio.com

    In articles about ministers, a link to their available online sermons seems perfectly reasonable and useful. Kyriosity (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We've had a discussion here, and the consensus seems to be that it would be a useful addition to the article. Kyriosity (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I need to give more information or something to get a response to this? If so, would somebody please let me know what else is needed? I've never encountered with this issue before, so I'm working blind here. Thanks! Kyriosity (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The site was spammed, and is not actually useful in almost all the places it was linked. If there are isolated links which would be useful (and ina way which does not violate WP:NOR, which was also an issue before), then whitelisting would seem to be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    bollywoodhungama.com

    Bollywood Hungama was recently added to the blacklist since spam bots were adding links to it to Bollywood movie articles. While the site should not be linked to in such a manner, it has a lot of legitimate use. I don't think it ever should have been added to the list, considering it has its own Wikipedia page and produces a lot of reliable information used heavily in references for Bollywood movies. Regarding this site, I do not believe User:A. B. followed steps 1, 2, or 3. There are still lots of references to the site in use all over Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm .. spambot? this looks different. This is totally disruptive, and as I see some SPA's on this link and indiafm.com ... hmm ... maybe this can go into abuse filter Special:AbuseFilter/107 or XLinkBot? I would certainly suggest to wait until another solution is implemented. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here was the community's response prior to these domains' blacklisting:
    1. 202.189.225.24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    3 blocks and 10 warnings from 9 different editors
    1. CambridgeBayWeather
    2. Capricorn42
    3. Edgar181
    4. Fritzpoll
    5. Jonathan Hall
    6. Killiondude
    7. MER-C
    8. Oxymoron83
    9. Sephiroth BCR
    2. 122.170.120.134 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    5 blocks and 13 warnings from 9 different editors:
    1. THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
    2. Abecedare
    3. Capricorn42
    4. Closedmouth
    5. Dreadstar
    6. Efe
    7. Jmundo
    8. Lucasbfr
    9. THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
    10. User:DarkFalls
    3. 124.30.48.153 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    9 warnings from 7 different editors:
    1. Hqb
    2. Islescape
    3. Maelgwnbot
    4. Mspraveen
    5. Shovon76
    6. THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
    7. Tiggerjay
    4. 202.87.45.10 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    3 blocks and 8 warnings from 7 different editors:
    1. J.delanoy
    2. Caknuck
    3. Ironholds
    4. THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
    5. Geoff Plourde
    6. Closedmouth
    7. Allstarecho
    8. Kafziel
    5. Bollywoodhungama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    2 warnings from 1 editor:
    1. Dekisugi
    6. 219.83.226.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    17 warnings from 7 different editors:
    1. Closedmouth
    2. JaGa
    3. NickBush24
    4. RainbowOfLight
    5. Someguy1221
    6. THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
    7. Tombomp
    7. 202.189.225.25 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    7 warnings and 1 block from 4 different editors:
    1. Oxymoron83
    2. Piano non troppo
    3. Anshuk
    4. THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
    8. 219.83.226.4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    1 warning from 1 editor:
    1. Backslash Forwardslash
    Normally, we blacklist domains after the spammers have gotten 3 to 4 warnings -- not 67 warnings and 12 blocks.
    Given this person's persistence, I don't think XLinkBot will do much good. We may be better off whitelisting individual web pages as needed. As for removing the remaining links, the spam filter should allow editing the pages with links that pre-existed the domains' blacklisting. I think most of these were added by regular editors, so I did not remove them. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm .. I agree fully. Need I mention this is a XWiki case? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a note at WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force inviting editors of our Bollywood articles to comment.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The spamming is very unfortunate and I think mars the reputation of an otherwise useful site. I looked at some FA and GA listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force, and here are the number of references that are to bollywoodhungama.com or indiafm.com:

    Is it possible to make an abuse filter to only allow autoconfirmed users to add the links? --Odie5533 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe this can go into abuse filter Special:AbuseFilter/107 ... A. B., how wide are these ranges, and how big is the chance that there are more ranges? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still need the ranges, I have them now too narrow. We are going to test Special:AbuseFilter/143 on this one. Consider removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, XLinkBot should find any new ranges or socks, please block logged in spam user accounts immediately. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    newenergytimes.com

    This site was added to the blacklist, originally without discussion or evidence other than a mention in a "courtesy notice," about lenr-canr.org, that "newenergytimes.com seems to be apart of the same problem." There was no apparent declared basis for the listing of NET other than an alleged fringe POV bias. (The copyright violation argument made with respect to lenr-canr.org, which might be considered to "rub off" on NET -- i.e., similar arguments could be made because they do republish material published elsewhere, sometimes -- has been discredited.) The site is notable, and was previously used as an external link in Cold fusion; it would be one of the top three or four web sites covering the field (along with lenr-canr.org). There is a draft article at User:Abd/New Energy Times, I would like to link to the site there, since I plan to move the page to mainspace, plus I may present links for Cold fusion for the consideration of the editors there. The site is useful in three ways: it contains many articles published elsewhere which are not readily available, plus it contains original material by notable authors which may, under certain conditions, be useful, and it is extremely useful for our readers to find further recent information and news on the subject, the editor, Steven Krivit, is a journalist specializing in the field, and recognized as an expert. There was a prior discussion on a delisting request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2009#newenergytimes.com. The denial there referred to alleged cross-wiki spam, which would not be grounds for blacklisting here, and the site is not blacklisted at meta. My impression is that the "evidence" consisted of appropriate links to the web site, placed on other wikis, possibly in violation of COI rules by the site manager, which should not be, unless massive and not stopped after warning, a cause for the use of the blacklist. Editor COI is not relevant to content decisions as made by other editors. Hence I respectfully request delisting. --Abd (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support delisting. The admin who added it to the blacklist has been involved in content disputes involving the topic and is currently the subject of an RfC for exactly such admin actions while involved. I haven't seen any evidence that the link was used for spamming. While there may be differences of opinion about whether to include the link in various places, those are content decisions, not to be decided by blacklisting. Arbcom has decided "In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual" (Fringe science). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to vote either way, as I am too involved in previous requests regarding this site. There is a minor (cross-wiki) spam case on newenergytimes, but that one is, though it looked promotional, really not a large enough scale problem to allow blacklisting of this site (5-6 additions cross wiki, and we are not talking about the meta blacklist anyway).
    Newenergytimes.com and lenr-canr.org contain freely available copies of documents. Due to the nature of such sites, they may show a preference (see [WP:UNDUE]]) for certain information (without the site maintainer being able to do something about that). the main problems being, that the only documents on such sites are those documents copyright could be transferred for (where certain authors or journals are more willing to transfer copyright, and generally, journals with a higher citation index will have more problems transferring the copyright), and only documents which the site maintainer knows existence of (in good faith, I presume they have a full overview), &c.,&c.
    That said, for these two links, there have been editors who have shown a massive preference for using documents on this site, while I have the feeling that they hardly linked to the original literature. From that point-of-view, I do believe that blacklisting of these sites, maybe with the disclaimer 'at that time', was warranted.
    I hence believe that this site can be useful (but not necesseraly necessery, as the originals can in most cases still be linked), but when used, the information on these sites should be used with due care! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Beetstra. Properly, as you know, you should not reject the unlisting, because of your prior decision; however, if you choose, you can reverse your prior decision. Normally, I'd ask you on your Talk page to do so, but there are, again as you know, complications with that. As to due care, of course. Links to this site would only be used on Cold fusion and related articles, and those are intensely scrutinized, I couldn't force usage the links inappropriately if I wanted to, and I don't. --Abd (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am neither declining nor endorsing de-listing per my involvement (I have given my thoughts more often). I found it however appropriate to give my 2p in order to broaden the view (that's why I say, that if de-listing is decided, that then due care is necessery; and I am giving another interpretation of an above statement: blacklisting of a site is not a content decision, the material on blacklisted sites can still be used as a reference (see my post "my thoughts" on your talkpage of 6 April 2009, 13:27 (I hope this is UTC)), they can only not be linked to anymore on the blacklisted site). I let the decision of de-listing entirely to other admins, preferably ones that are not too involved in other discussions regarding this case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely, except that it is a content decision if it is based on content arguments. The appropriateness of a link is the appropriateness of a kind of content. I'm seeing no argument here that the link needs to be blacklisted to prevent linkspam, and "linkspam" is, technically, not a content argument but has to do with numbers of links being added without review. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That this list is named 'Spam-blacklist' does not mean that it is, for long, used for links which have been abused, which can be abused (but have not yet been!), broad rules which block out a lot of abuse (spam), Joe jobs, perfectly solid links which nonetheless are massively, uncontrollable abused, malware sites which have not been abused (but are a risk to Wikipedia). You don't see the argument this is spammed or is spam, because it is not the case, the case is about abuse in order to give certain articles a undue weight. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Now what does this have to do with the blacklisting of this particular site? Links to it were long used for various purposes. The editors of Cold fusion made the decision, and certain links were relatively stable. There was no apparent consensus against them, but one administrator, who seems to believe that WP:UNDUE requires removing any references to positive results or argument in favor of low-energy nuclear reactions, did remove links and blacklisted, without discussion. There is no way for discussion here to properly determine weight at Cold fusion, that requires understanding the field and the issues, and requires participation of editors knowledgeable about the article. If there was abuse, please document it. I am not claiming that the blacklist should never be used for content issues, only that, by the guidelines, this should be unusual and the case for it clear. There is no such case here. Further, blacklisting the two most significant web sites that are sources for information about cold fusion (original publication or as convenience copies) is hardly a way to create balance! --Abd (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I have to repeat that (just to be sure, there is at least one editor with quite a preference for using information from these sites, over 40% of the link additions by this account were to newenergytimes.com and lenr-canr.org, I am sorry, but I do not believe that the articles on these sites have a high citation index (of course there will be exceptions), and I suspect that the number 3 and 4 on the list of this editor are also not having a high citation index, and possibly even the 5th, and by now we are over 50%)? To me this reeks of using selected information for undue weight. And please, at least lenr-canr.org is NOT the most significant web site that is a source of information about cold fusion, that are the originals of the copies contained there. But as I said, I'll leave the conclusions to others, I only state what I see and what data I have. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Bugzilla bug 14719 (link) and the discussions to rename this list linked over there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link, Beetstra. We've talked about the word "spam," and agree. However, here, the issue is not the name of the blacklist or "spam," but the usage of the list, and usage guidelines are clear. Sure, the name should be changed, I agree completely, because "spam" unnecessarily is insulting to editors, and it is often inappropriate, even if the blacklisting is necessary. But that's not today's issue at all. Please do realize that substantial change to the blacklisting guidelines should be widely discussed, it's quite a serious issue, and I think that most editors are unaware of this expanded mission, where a handful of administrators can make far-reaching content decisions that even ArbComm would stay away from. --Abd (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcomm does not make content decisions, that is done by editors. No need to drag ArbComm in here, Abd. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have misunderstood, Beetstra. I wrote that ArbComm does not make content decisions. But apparently a handful of administrators think that they can do this, here, on the blacklist page, where those watching an article won't see it, and it seems that you (and at least one other administrator) believe that, as applied to newenergytimes.com, making these decisions site-wide and enforcing them with the blacklist is appropriate. Just so the issue is clear. I could present evidence countering your impression about weight and editors, but it is actually moot. The site should not be blacklisted, whether it is actually used or not, unless there is a linkspam issue. If it's blacklisted, the editors of the article, for the most part, won't even have the opportunity to consider it, and IP editors are at a severe disadvantage (you won't even consider a whitelisting request from an IP editor).
    Oh, yes, I forgot to mention, indeed: again, blacklisting a site is not a content decision, the information can still be used to write part of an article and it can still be referenced. And the accusation that we do not consider IP editors' requests is just ridiculous. If they request "please remove it, I want to link to it", yes, then we decline, if they come with a reasonable request, then generally we either say them to consider asking a wikiproject for more back up, if the request is proper, then we certainly consider it. But most of these requests are done by IPs who were involved in the 'spamming' originally. And you are again going completely off topic, this is NOT the place to discuss blacklist practices, that is below. Here we discuss newenergytimes.com, and if we have sufficient reason to remove it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I looked, references and external links were content. You know and I know what happens to whitelist requests from IPs, and I haven't said this is improper, with proper blacklistings. This blacklisting wasn't. To demand that there be "sufficient reason to remove it" .... is evidence of a poor practice here, biased toward original decisions. Because of the shotgun nature of the blacklist, the issue should be "sufficient reason to keep it." --Abd (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue has been discussed numerous times, and there is still no convincing argument to remove from blacklist, per concerns of WP:UNDUE as noted above. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the issue with this site was discussed only once, where a decision was made, and that was here, and is cited above. The blacklisting guidelines suggest blacklisting as a measure of last resort, to stop massive linkspam. The decision to use a link or not in an article is up to the editors of that article, subject to wider consensus on appeal. Blacklisting makes the decision, for all practical purposes, top-down, i.e., generically, without regard to the specific page linked and the needs of an article. The arguments about possible site bias have a basis, possibly, but are matters that we have generally chosen to leave to editorial consensus, not to administrative action, and blacklisting is an administrative action. Ohnoitsjamie has it backwards. If there is no necessity to blacklist, blacklisting should not be used. Period. It is only if there is necessity, but also some possible use, that debate over usability becomes relevant.
    Beetstra has somewhat confused lenr-car.org, which is mostly a "library," containing documents published elsewhere, with newenergytimes.com, which is a site of original publication, plus containing archives of documents published elsewhere. As an example where newenergytimes.com would be particularly valuable as a source would be with respect to news and views of the community researching low-energy nuclear reactions; it is an edited publication with a responsible publisher. It is reliable for that; however, this issue should not be decided here. It should be delisted because there was and is no legitimate basis for listing. --Abd (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have only been discussed, but these sorts of links have been discussed ad nauseam. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point me to a place where a decision was made by more than one administrator or group of editors other than those involved in fighting spam. No linkspamming was involved here, see Beetstra's comment above. The link is the kind allowed or even encouraged by WP:EL, particularly when viewed in the light of the recent ArbComm ruling on Fringe science. And whether the topic is fringe or not is actually much more complex than it might appear at first glance from popular opinion. See the recent peer-reviewed literature in the field. But this is actually irrelevant here. This is abuse of the blacklist to control content, I'll stand on that. Disagree? Change the guidelines. --Abd (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    {{modelref}} and supermodels.nl

    An editor asked me to create this template - {{modelref}} - which gives a brief list of web galleries for a given model. He recently asked me to add supermodels.nl to the list of supported sites, which went through fine on the template (because the link is inside a conditional), but blacklisted it when I saved the documentation. I'm concerned that any editor who tries to add that site via the template will get the transclusion page spam-blocked. is that likely to happen, and if so is there any mechanism for excluding the template from the spam-block process? or is supermodels.nl something I should just remove from the template entirely? --Ludwigs2 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Handled at meta, where the blacklist entry lived. --Ludwigs2 13:54, 24 March 2009 (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.

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

    Note: if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user do add a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

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

    poking COIBot

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

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


    Discussion

    Malicious sites

    Can a site be blacklisted for being malicious? prowrestling.com is one, a Google test shows 6.97% of the pages on the site resulted in malicious content being downloaded to the users computer without their consent. My own personal experience with the site was the same, I would have to run my McAfee security sweep after visiting the site due to the problems the site would cause. Here is the Google report [13]. I have brought this up at the wrestling project and so far they seem to agree about not using this site. TJ Spyke 02:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sites that are found to be malicious, or host exploits need to be immediatly removed and blacklisted to protect wikipedias users. Another check for this can be found at http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/default.aspx . --Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Question

    Dont know if this is the right place, hope someone will see this. Was adding a link to the section on Stepfamily. It has been there in the past, but know told that The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://www.st

    What the hell.

    The links would have been: s t e p f am i l y . a s n . a u

    s t e p f a m i l y z o n e . c o m .a u

    I can be contact at <email address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.106.232 (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    http://stepfamilyzone.com.au http://stepfamily.asn.au http://www.stepfamilyzone.com.au

    They aren't blacklisted, as can be seen. I'll email the editor. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    there was a technical problem which was solved a few minutes after it occurred. -- seth (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, out of this there may have been some improvement to the article. Turns out that the site the IP editor was concerned about had been removed in spite, apparently, by an editor whose own addition had been reverted as linkspam, and it wasn't noticed. The article was also a linkfarm, and some work has been done on that. All's well that ends well. --Abd (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adsense partner-pub-5896236991546092
    Accounts
    203.87.106.232 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Seems this anon IP is adding sites that are only from the same site owner, "Stepfamily Association of South Australia Inc" (Adsense confirmed). Administrative Contact is the same also (aka 203.87.106.232)--Hu12 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem

    Resolved
     – It's been fixed --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Administrators, We got a big problem in Spam-blacklist's Turkish page tr:MedyaViki:Spam-blacklist. The problem is, the list doesnt' work. I mean, anyone can write the web page in blacklist with having no problem. Could you please look for the problem and write what the problem is in my user talk page (in Turkish wiki). Greetings from Turkey.--Onurkayabasi (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • You are right, only administrators can edit it. Because of that i requested you to find the problem&solution and write me to make it changed. Im not an administrator but administrators asked me if i could find the problem and tell any solutions for that, but i couldn't find and wanted your help. And i think you can find the problem by looking at the source page. Thanks for sharing your time with this.--Onurkayabasi (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We found the problem and make the list work again. Thanks for your helps--Onurkayabasi (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia mirrors

    What's the feeling about placing wikipedia mirrors on the blacklist? I know they aren't normally "spammed" by single editors and aren't malicious, but they do tend to show up in articles inserted by well meaning folks and can create circular references. We discussed it on AN but I wanted to kick the real answer back to you guys. Some of these have something on the order of 500-1000 links (probably a lot more if I went through everything on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks) and it might be nice to know that manually removing them wouldn't be in vain after a few months. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is tricky because some of these sites leave editing on and so may become divergent sources in their own right. Any site hosting only static Wikipedia article mirrors is another matter, but most include some kind of embellishment that could be viewed as adding value. I'd say treat them on a case by case basis. Dcoetzee 09:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible to blocklist internal WMF/interwiki links?

    There's a very banned user (banned WMF-wide, per Jimbo) that keeps popping up here linking back to the one site he's apparently still active on. He will link his sig as an IP user as something like interwikiname:User:Something/Something or interwikiname:User talk:Something/Something. Can this be blocked from here to discourage him or is that not technically possible? rootology (C)(T) 14:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We used to have MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist... might be an equivelent on meta.wikimedia.org? --Hu12 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Usernames are added to the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist now, (meta). Kylu (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    buddconf.sytes.net

    Is it possible somehow to whitelist (buddconf.sytes.net)? Its a Buddhist conference page filled with materials about Northern european buddhis history .Has nothing to do with commercials or so on. I even dont to whom to talk about it. I,m editing articles - *Friedrich Lustig ,*Guhyasamāja tantra ,*Karl Tõnisson , *The international conference „Buddhism and Nordland , *Alpo Ratia , and I need it for reference . VanemTao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanemTao (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FortMillHomePros

    fortmillhomepros.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
    and
    fortmillhomepros.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

    buddconf.sytes.net

    Is it possible somehow to whitelist (buddconf.sytes.net)? Its a Buddhist conference page filled with materials about Northern european buddhis history


    Spam filter notice From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

    The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You will need to remove any instance of the blacklisted link in your text addition before you can save the page. Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page.

    The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: buddconf.sytes.net Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.

    If you want to remove the site from the blacklist entirely, please request it in the "proposed removals" above. To use just one or a few pages from the site, please request it in the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FamousAmericans.net

    This cite seems really good; I need it for a reference for the Benjamin Edes article I'm making. Google search benjamin edes; it's the first result; it's very non-spammy. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's part of Virtualology.com, it's all about history and stuff; I have NO IDEA how this got blacklisted. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we blacklist co.cc?

    I'm putting this forward for discussion... should we blacklist the co.cc subdomain? The web site co.cc is a redirect service, and it appears to be popping up on Wikipedia as a way to get around the spam filters. (For example, the "humansfuture.org" spammer listed earlier on this page has now started sneaking links into the project by using that service.) As of this post, there are about 458 links to the subdomain:

    I'm aware that there may be some collateral damage in the process, primarily in terms of personal sites links from user pages. However, given the ease with which one spammer has adopted this method, the spam-like nature of numerous others on the list, and the likelihood of this increasing in the future, it may be worthwhile to take steps now while we have a manageable situation. (Otherwise, we may end up revisiting this when there are thousands of links instead of hundreds.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 06:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=283788825"