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 Hu12 (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 30 October 2009 (→‎www.nicoclub.com: declined). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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 – 322967998 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions


    Scanlation websites

    These websites are distribution channels for copyright violating materials known as scanlations. Editors have attempted to sneak these links into the external links sections, user pages, or use them as pseudo-references. In a few cases, images from these copyvio websites have been uploaded to Wikipedia. Some of these links are preemptive as when the main sites are blacklisted, edits will attempt to switch to other sites. Even with that in mind, this list is hardly expansive and is only from the first three pages of Google hits using the search term "read manga online" along with a few other known scanlation websites. --Farix (Talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure we should be adding preemptive ones without any serious reason. I think such measures should be reserved for things like virus threats otherwise that sets a high president for blacklisting which would go against WP:CENSOR's spirit, if not word. For the non-pre-emitive ones, I do agree with Farix.Jinnai 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:NOTCENSORED: Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed.
    Since linking to external websites that contain material that is in violation of the creator's copyright is a violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:COPYLINK), this would not be covered by Wikipedia's anti-censorship policy. --Farix (Talk) 19:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those do indeed host copyviolating manga scanlations, either as a scanlation group's website or (more often) by hosting scanlations done by same, but I know of two of them that do not: Manganews.net hosts a fair amount of (non-reliable) reviews of manga and well as news items in addition to indexing scanlators, but is not itself a distribution channel; mangaupdates.com is mostly a scanlation tracker, but again, is not itself a distribution channel. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Both site actually do link to torrent for scanlations when they are available as well as the scanlation's homepage here where the scanlation can be obtained. anidb.info is already on the blacklist for similar reasons relating to fansubs, though they have changed their url to anidb.net. --Farix (Talk) 12:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of sites link to copyrighted material, lots of unreliable and sometimes reliable: blogs, search engines, news sites, etc.Jinnai 16:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And? While we can't blacklist every website/blog/forum that links to copyright violation material, at the very least we should blacklist the major hubs of such links. --Farix (Talk) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neutral while those websites give access or help to access contents protected by copyright doing a such list is difficult to maintain and is somewhat shouting a statement like "Wikipedia censors scanlation". --KrebMarkt 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia already has a policy against linking to websites with material that is in violation of the creator's copyright. Adding these to the blacklist is just a method to enforce a pre-existing ban. --Farix (Talk) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read that policy. First it only pertains to sites that host the copyright material itself (it even spells it out explicititly). Sites containing links do not fall under that. Second, it still provides for context, such as for an article on the site itself or a section which directly relates to that. However, in the latter I can't see that as being likely as most news outlets do not talk about anything specifically for scantalations (a few talk about specific fansub groups). So I could give you the latter part given I doubt any of these are notable, but the former is not covered by policy. And I also don't believe in pre-banning excpet when it deals with Wikipedia's system integrity.Jinnai 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Stale--Hu12 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    tampa4u.com

    Please see WPSPAM report here: [1] Triplestop x3 02:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    propertyzote.com

    Fedyy (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)

    propertyzote.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frSpamcheckMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.com

    Diffs: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Brgds, --R.Schuster (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adsense pub-2286515848043797
    Also 58.110.34.26 (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)
    Fails our External Links policy and is a Link normally to be avoided. I'm not convinced this could ever be used as as a citation so it fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. nothing more than real estate spam.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    homedesigndirectory.com.au

    homedesigndirectory.com.au: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frSpamcheckMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.com

    Each time I remove these links to a commercial website from a number of home design articles, a different sock account puts them back. Clearly this is an experienced and relentless spammer. Abductive (reasoning) 23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adsense pub-4446228375381513
    addthis_pub = 'alan_bron';
    A DesignTek Pty Ltd (ABN 77 064 276 473)
    From homedesigndirectory.com.au/links.shtml
    "Alan Bron, co-owner of A&A DesignTek Pty Ltd, is the editor of this web site and is responsible for the search engine optimisation (SEO) that has successfully put this web site on page one of Google's search results for numerous search terms (click here for details links to aadt.biz/it-consulting.html#references)."
    Accounts
    Alan bron (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)
    Maggieryder (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)
    70.182.249.172 (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)
    65.208.16.195 (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)
    124.170.67.75 (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)
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plevris.homo.com (NSFW)

    plevris.homo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frSpamcheckMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.com
    This very not-safe-for-work link was just added to several pages by a vandal. Clearly serves no encyclopedic purpose and its presense here will only be as vandalism. ThemFromSpace 02:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Root domain plus Added. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-AVGN.tk (MALWARE / NSFW )

    anti-avgn.tk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frSpamcheckMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.com
    Don't click the link casually as it will open innumerable windows with NSFW content and try to download malware on your computer. Link was being added by TheUltimateWob‎ (talk · contribs) who I blocked. There is absolutely no foreseeable reason for wikipedia to link to this site and therefore I propose that it be added to the blacklist. Abecedare (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Good catch. Thanks for reporting.--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Just for the record, 98.248.33.198‎ (talk · contribs) caught this and reported it at AIV. Abecedare (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    vk.com

    accounts adding the link

    Persistent spamming of link to multiple articles. IPs ignore all warnings, and do not engage in discussion about the links. The link at Vkontakte to http://vk.com/index.php is appropriate and should be whitelisted - but all other additions (that also seem to include a ref id) should be blacklisted as there's no encyclopedic value to any other article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#vk.com. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cross wiki spam
    Also requesting Meta BL--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They've switched to using vkontakte.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frSpamcheckMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.com , can that be added as well? - MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    accounts adding the link

    --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pptweddie/Archive, Adsense pub-9231437151029763. seems to be a pattern including scams  Done--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com

    Examiner.com is "citizen journalism" website similar to Associated Content (which we already block). Like Associated Content, they will accept contributions from essentially anyone, they exercise no editorial control, and they pay for page impressions; as such, it fails WP:RS. In addition, they deliberately allow themselves to be confused with the San Francisco Examiner, which is a reliable source. This has resulted in a fair number of good-faith additions based on examiner.com as a reference; there are also examples of additions which seem to be sneaky links to some author's page - which, again, is paid per impression. I'm not aware of any concerted spam campaign, but the other issues related to examiner.com links have convinced me that we should be blocking them to discourage their use as a reference. Gavia immer (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with this request, but it'll take a substantial effort to remove the existing 2k+ links. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Launched in April 2008 Examiner.com links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    ""Examiners" are paid a very competitive rate based on standard Internet variables including page views, unique visitors, session length, and advertising performance. "
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    I would tend to agree also. Much cleanup is needed.--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone refresh my memory — did the bug whereby anyone editing a page with a blacklisted link got prevented from editing the page unless they removed the link (even if it was in a different section) get fixed? Stifle (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing a page with existing blacklisted links was fixed in r34769, dated May 13 2008. See also bug 1505. Anomie 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I sure am behind the times. In that case, I propose to add \bexaminer\.com\b to the blacklist in a week's time unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added it to the {{Findsources}}, which removes this domain from searches used in AFD discussions. Also commented on the templates talk page here--Hu12 (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, a week has gone by, so this is now plus Added. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    webcitation.org

    The www.webcitation.org site can be used to circumvent the Spam blacklist much like www.tinyurl.com. I have no evidence that webcitation.org has been used in this fashion.

    I ran across this as I was on the .pst article and hovered my mouse over the reference link to see what site was being used as a reference. I was surprised to see the rather anonymous www.webcitation.org/5k40hOrFo meaning I needed to click to discover what site was being used as the source reference.

    A robot has been converting links to Wikipedia sources to use webcitation.org meaning at present there are many links to that web site. Another robot has notice the links and added Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/webcitation.org.

    I have asked at User talk:WebCiteBOT#Concerns about webcitation.org that the robot be modified to comment out the webcitation.org link. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    naj-obchody.sk

    naj-obchody.sk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frSpamcheckMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.com Adding links to articles in slovak wikipedia from different IPs. Its company which improve SEO for other webs. They put links to stimulate the google search positions of their home page.

    please inform me about reguest progress --Vegetator (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lpool1981 (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)
    92.41.25.251 (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)
    92.41.62.91 (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)
    92.41.10.188 (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)
    92.41.15.163 (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)
    92.41.40.244 (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)
    92.41.71.180 (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)
    81.154.122.207 (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)
    81.154.118.182 (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)
    94.197.117.237 (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)
    Cross wiki spam
    Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/naj-obchody.sk,  Defer to Global blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a request, here -- meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#naj-obchody.sk. --Hu12 (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this has now been added at meta [7]. Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    somerset3d.co.uk

    Ning.com

    • Social networking site.
    • More specifically, this regards links with the format addisethio.ning.com/group/[some_subject]

    These addisethio.ning.com links are appearing in various Ethiopia-related articles. These represent the only edits from this IP address. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be a reasonable request, not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reconserver.com

    Accounts

    Activity

    Commercial site selling keylogging software to capture passwords. Edit warring and modifying other links in the Keystroke logging article to point to the reconserver.com site. Spam warnings not being headed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    see WPSPAM item
    Also
     Done, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    googlecustomsearch.appspot.com

    Should be added for the same reason as www.google.com/cse, methinks. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, we've got our own Special:Search. Also just seems to be the code from google.com/cse plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    niralimagazine.com

    This site is hosting malware, specifically "Trojan.Pidief.F".   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cottage Rentals

    These websites are repeatedly added into articles such as Muskoka and Parry Sound,[8], Cottage,[9][10][11] and Cottage country.[12] They are for finding cottage rentals and would serve no useful purpose, even on the cottage or cottage country articles where they are so frequently inserted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More
    Accounts
    CottageTravels (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)
    76.66.184.144 (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)
    Entry01 (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)
    Istakoza (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)
    88.22.61.29 (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)
    87.222.99.124 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.6.15.52 (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)
    88.3.253.4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.18.161.71 (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)
    151.33.234.184 (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)
    80.56.210.128 (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)
    79.150.186.70 (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)
    Agree, seems to be both a problem and no encyclopedic value, good catch.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    honestfreespeech.com

    link
    accounts
    articles

    A non-notable video sharing site (newly created, and to date only three members). Repeatedly re-spamming advert links and posting rants about why the advert should be permitted. User has ignored all posts to his talk pages - both the warnings and the attempts at providing helpful guidance. Site is, at this stage, self-published content, and provides no encyclopedic value to this project. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. Comments seems to be nothing more than Vexatious rantings, despite the Good faith helpful guidance offered--Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    504experts.com

    Accounts adding
    Sba504guru (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)
    Jwolcott (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)
    208.82.161.66 (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)
    208.51.111.34 (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)
    Merca123 (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)
    Sdinatale (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)
    Obviously these are WP:SPA accounts, using Wikipedia for promotion and advertising purposes. I see the domain is limited to their respective (yet spammy) articles, unfortunatly this is appropriate. Lets hold off for now or untill this develops further. --Hu12 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    hscripts.com

    Hi, Our site hscripts.com seemed to be blacklisted. please remove it from the blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.52.149 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Stifle (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied in the absence of a reply. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    why was it blocked. just because some one add a link to our site can it be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.124.97 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It was one of initialy seven sites spammed, all by the same owner (HIOX India, Adsense pub-3229609591361912)[]
    Incidentaly, an IP recently, from range 115.184.52.149/17 adding another HIOX India site;
    115.184.126.70 (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)
    --Hu12 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How much spam did you get from hscripts.com? Also how many links where submitted for hscripts.com that made you think it was a spam. Why do you block the website in wikipedia just because some one links to it. Does that mean that no site should be linked from wikipedia and our website will never be linked from wikipedia. Does it also mean that wikipedia will never use a link to HIOX India websites. If this is the case then I would be willing to give all the websites owned by HIOX INDIA so that you can block all the websites from wiki and say that we will never link nor write about HIOX nor its websites at any point of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.92.243 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I was analyzing I found that you have even removed link for the site easycalculation.com from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_calculators. The page has nothing but links to calculator sites and the link to easycalculation.com was there from the birth of the article. Its really absurd that this too was considered spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.116.233 (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.google.com/cse

    I have been wanting to link to the custom search engine for the Video Game Project for finding reliable sources, and get a blocked notice. What is the reason for this? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Its blocked on all language projects. Thats for adding to websites. Wikipedia is not a place to Host a search box, we've got our own Special:Search.--Hu12 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AsianMediaWiki.com

    theclassicalmusicshop.net

    corrected to "theclassicalshop.net"; see below

    I am objecting to blacklisting "theclassicalmusicshop.net" and similar sites. This is my first encounter with the blacklist-whitelist concept, but I have to say, blacklisting such an excellent source of information about recordings seems fairly disruptive to me. I've done a lot of work on discographies for various classical musicians. Here is an example of an article that is affected: Antony Beaumont. It was when I tried to edit that page today that I encountered the problem. Not only this site "theclassicalmusicshop.net", but other similar ones which apparently have a good chance of ending up on this list, frequently provide useful material, including detailed track lists, artists, dates and locations of recordings, and often and not the least important, downloadable CD booklets which contain much information on the music, composers, and artists. If one incorporates this information into an article, one should quite properly provide a link to the product page with the information about the recording, and/or link to the booklet which was the source for the information. It will be very inconvenient and discouraging to good editing to require that each editor obtain an exception each time that editor would like to link to this site. Yet that's what seems like has happened. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This domain does not appear to be blacklisted:
    Are you sure that's the correct address? It doesn't look like there's anything at that page.
    --A. B. (talkcontribs) 13:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A.B. see [whitelist request. He means the theclassicalshop.net. --Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    theclassicalshop.net

    OK, now I see the history; theclassicalshop.net is blacklisted

    Personally, I agree with you (see my comments in the earlier discussion), but I'd like to see more discussion here first. Could you leave a (neutrally-worded) note at the appropriate WikiProject(s) asking for input from our classical music editors? Thanks, --A. B. (talkcontribs) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about the error. I must have been getting tired when I did this. I'll see what I can do about getting more input. I just want to point out that when an artist records for very few labels, it's clear there will be a bias in the links from that page. Also, I'm amazed that someone would want to block links from Amazon.com as well. The article on Antony Beaumont also includes an effective and descriptive blockquote from Kirkus Reviews that I picked up on a product page at that site. (I must confess that I bought the book: the quote is quite accurate.) (Also I see that the quote is no longer on the Amazon page. I haven't checked yet whether it may have been preserved on the WayBack machine.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I found two discographies with multiple links to product pages which would not appear to be in the category of spam:

    Arthur Honegger discography
    Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) discography

    Lists like these seem to be the exception, but that is because adding links or footnotes to sources of information is time-consuming and requires effort so doing it is the exception rather than the rule. Personally I think both of the editors who created these lists are to be lauded for doing so. We should encourage this kind of thing rather than discourage it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    atbriders.com

    I would like atbriders.com to become whitelisted. I'm not sure as to why it was blacklisted in the first place. It is a mountainboarding social networking web site that I had listed on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountainboarding page before it was unexpectedly blacklisted. There is a section on the mountainboarding wikipedia page that lists online forums, and since atbriders.com has an online forum just about mountainboarding I would like to add the link to it. The web site is useful because it is a place where new or seasoned mountainboarders can come together, ask questions, share pictures, videos, and mountainboarding related information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.140.243 (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Forums are not generally considered reliable sources; what makes this an exception? Stifle (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If forums are not generally considered reliable sources, then why are other forums allowed to be linked to on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountainboarding while mine is not? It doesn't bother me if forums aren't allowed to have their links on wikipedia, but what does bother me is the inconsistency, as other forums are currently freely listing themselves on the wikipedia page for mountainboarding, while mine isn't allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.140.243 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point. WP:ELNO criteria 1 and 10 both imply that web forums have no place on Wikipedia. atbriders isn't allowed and nor should any of the others. The ones in the mountainboarding article should be removed by someone. I for one make a point of removing forums whenever I come across them in articles that I edit. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, those have now been properly removed. This request is closed as  Denied. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    yachtpals.com

    We request that yachtpals.com be removed from the spam blacklist. Yachtpals.com is a legitimate news source that does not spam sites. We provide valuable information which could be of use at wikipedia. We specifically deal with news pertaining to boating and sailing adventures around the world and interview sailors directly, no press release reprints only original news. We don't know why we were blacklisted but we know that much information from our site has in fact been copied onto wikipedia (not by us, must be by our readers). For example see the Kenichi Horie page. Unfortunetely, when we tried to put a link to important information on our site today regarding Jessica Watson we received an error which said we were blacklisted. Please reconsider as we can be a valuable resource for wikipedia. We truly appreciate your attention in this matter as we consider wikipedia a useful source on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.87.88 (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Accounts spamming yachtpals.com on Wikipedia
    69.228.217.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    69.228.227.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    69.228.95.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    All seem to have come from the same sbc net range as yours 69.228.87.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Contact re www.2knowmyself.com

    Israeli News Agency

    Why is http"//www.isrealinewsagency.com blocked? Since when does wikipedia block news sources? --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not blocked locally, it's blocked at Meta. Your question should be posted there instead. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the original meta block request here. From looking at the site, I'd agree with the rationale behind the block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.zentechnologies.com

    Hi I found that my website is blacklisted by the spam filters. Please remove it from Blacklist as I have not done anything against the policies/terms & conditions of Wikipedia. Please remove it from the list—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.19.192 (talkcontribs) 06:02, 29 October 2009

    Excessive spam and abuse, including from the IP you used here.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.nicoclub.com

    Requesting removal from blacklist. Some past staffers got in a bit of trouble with Wikipedia, but have long since been replaced. Was attempting to edit / update / rectify some incorrect info on the 240sx Convertible page and include the Official Registry of these vehicles (see forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/165498). Our intention is NOT to "spam" the page, our linking and page strength speaks for itself. We maintain a close relationship with Nissan North America, and are the web's foremost resource for Nissan enthusiasts. We're just asking to be treated fairly, as there are quite a few links on that page alone that contain misinformation and "are "spammy" by nature. Thanks for your consideration! 70.176.198.131 (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-representatives' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. However, it does appears a second chance was given, and the additions continued. Being the the site is an unofficial fans/enthusiast forum, it is a Link normally to be avoided and would fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It also appears that the spamming of your sites coninued since that time;
    24.123.89.226 (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)
    76.172.51.238 (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)
    69.23.66.89 (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)
    98.100.143.96 (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)
    Those will also be added, no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    I tried to add a link to http://www.learn-hebrew.co.il/English-Hebrew/dust.htm to the discussion here about the differences in the modern/historical translation of the Hebrew word "dust" but the link said it was blacklisted. However, I did a search of the blacklist page and couldn't find the link (or any part of it) on there. Am I missing it or is there an error? If it is on there, I was just wondering why because it seems like a legitimate translation site. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like there was chronic problem of abuse involving multiple language wikipedias. Its probably best to use a different source, however if there are no reasonable alternatives available, you can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source.--Hu12 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 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.
    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

    FYI: Local reports from COIBot

    I have posted this with full explanation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#New COIBot functionality, in short, COIBot now saves reports for links where the additions trip certain thresholds to reports on meta. They are categorised in m:Category:COIBot Local Reports. For en: m:Category:COIBot Local reports for en.wikipedia.org categorises all reports concerning this wiki, open reports are in m:Category:Open Local reports for en.wikipedia.org. More information can also be found in m:User:COIBot/Local. Please be careful with evaluating these reports, it is based on bot statistics, NOT on an evaluation of the information linked to or a full evaluation of the editor. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Contact re pornstarglobal.com

    Today I received an e-mail from a user identifying himself as User:GlobalCorp -- this account has been permablocked -- who asked me to consider intervention in the blacklisting of his website, pornstarglobal.com. I've read the archived discussion, I've examined the site, and I can see no point whatsoever to making it possible for links to this site to be added to Wikipedia; I'm firmly against any kind of intervention. I'm leaving this note because (a) I haven't the faintest idea why this individual chose me for his e-mail request, since I've had nothing to do with any previous activity involving pornstarglobal.com, and (b) I am wondering if any other admins have received such e-mails recently. My experience is that, since my username is alphabetically near the top of an list, I tend to get e-mails from people who are trying to enlist large numbers of admins pretty much at random. My policy is not to answer e-mail privately but to do such business in the full view of the Wikipedia community, but I suspect it may be useless to leave notes for User:GlobalCorp on his talk page. If other admins are being randomly contacted with this material, it may be time to block User:GlobalCorp from sending e-mail. If anyone has any questions or comments, I"m at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the note Accounting4Taste. I agree with your assesment. Seems there is a pattern of electronic canvassing by this blocked user and an ongoing abuse of the "email this user" feature, therefore I have blocked that. The user's talk page remains unprotected, for now. Lets see how long that'll last) . --Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I assure you there is no need to block anything because I wouldn't know what that is in the first place. I was simply trying to contact admins for advice because I don't understand all this stuff you are talking about. No one will respond here except Hu12 and he/she is really just not very smart. I have never done so much explaining in my life. What I don't understand is why Admins. who are so strongly against it, keep posting here to voice that. I think you guys might be taking this admin./blocking thing a little too serious. No worries, be happy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.35.65 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a block on the above user's IP range may be necessary if this activity continues. They appear to be operating from the /18.Triplestop x3 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alhutch commented on the above-noted talk page that s/he too has received an e-mail and concurs with my comments. I think my observation about admins being contacted in alphabetical order seems to be borne out. I'd be in favour of the IP range block if only to get this forum-shopping canvassing over with. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    seconded, and I'm certain that this person was just contacting admins in alphabetical order.--Alhutch (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it me or are people just posting here now to practice their vocab? There is no operation, it's just a guy on a computer. What a weird place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.44.222 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Is there a reason the spam blacklist blocks edits in the talk pages too? I assumed we would be able to present our case for the inclusion of a link the article's talk page, and possibly, after discussion, request the removal of the domain (or whitelisting of that specific link) in the appropriate pages. But the way things are, it can't be even talked about! Is this intentional? --Waldir talk 11:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Links need not be hyperlinked to be discussed, ie http://www.spammydomain.com using wiki markup "<nowiki></nowiki>" or the use plain text ie. www.spammydomain.com (like you did here). --Hu12 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it, I just think that it's kind of a put-off to get a huge warning especially when you're trying to discuss possibly controversial changes, which is a behavior we should encourage.
    By the way, I'm wondering if this is the right place to ask about this -- should I make a bug report instead? --Waldir talk 15:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked links are not a bug. We add many sites that are known to install maleware, run malicious scrips or have trojan exploits which harm wikipedians. Why would we drive traffic to these sites on talk pages? In addition, why would we open ourself up to talk page spamming and canvassing?--Hu12 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't assume a lot of traffic is driven from talk pages until I see statistics showing that. My personal experience and opinion is that most readers don't use the talk pages -- these are mostly used by people concerned about changing the article's content. If they're doing it in good faith, as I said, we shouldn't be shoving a huge warning in their faces; If they're canvassing, I believe that alone is enough to make their efforts fruitless: most people are smart enough to recognize and reject blatantly biased opinions. As for spamming, we have excellent tools to prevent it, even automatically. Even if it does give us some extra work, the worst case shouldn't be dictating the default behavior. --Waldir talk 15:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't assume that efforts to protect our readers and editors from harm failed and resulted in installed maleware, malicious scripts or infections from trojan exploits. Nor would it be appropriate to allow links to child porn, or other blocked illegal content which violates the laws in the UK and US to be allowed to reside on either user or article talkpages. "we have excellent tools to prevent it...", as you say, and the blacklist happens to be an effective one. Why have a blacklist at all?--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit ambivalent about this, I agree with Waldir here, as it does help in discussing, we can discuss a specific document on a generally useless site (which is still possible by making sure the link is disabled, but it would make it easier). However, the spam blacklist is also used to protect against malware and similar sites, which harm the computer of our interested readers, and also, one could still use the talkpage to drive traffic; most people don't check where they end up when they click this link!. So it has its pros and cons .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Existing links being discussed for articles on talkpages that were there prior to blacklisting remain, "hyperlinked" untill removal. Ie. the offensive example above. It's the addition of new links that the BL restricts. However links need not be hyperlinked to be discussed, as there is Cut, copy, and paste. If a blacklisted links criteria for being discussed "requires" it to be hyperlinked on a talkpage, its probably being discussed for the wrong reasons. Either way the risks far outweigh any benifit. Wiki markup ("<nowiki></nowiki>") is simple to use, and Plain text is even easier.--Hu12 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another point is that if links for blacklisted sites were possible on talk pages, it would become standard practice for spammers to promote their sites via multiple talk pages (after the site has been blacklisted and so cannot appear on articles). Also, there have been many cases were spammers make user pages to promote their POV, and they would fill those with links as well. It is simple to post a URL like www.example.com/some/page.html (without any wiki markup required). Bear in mind that spammers post stuff because they hope it will work, not because it will work. So telling a spammer that there is no point in posting their links because of nofollow or whatever is generally a waste of time. In case there is any doubt, my opinion is that blacklisted sites should be blacklisted everywhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible for the code that does the blacklist testing and splashes the error to modify the content the person is trying to save so that it does not link? I would agree with not allowing clickable links to be added to talk pages. I have dealt with spambots that attack talk pages and do not restrict themselves to the mediawiki mainspace. It's easy to use www.spammy.com should someone need to discuss a blacklisted site. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a compromise solution would be great. I am not saying that blocked links should be clickable in talk pages, I agree that they probably shouldn't -- what I despise is having people learn our external link syntax and then scaring them away when they try to use it the way it's intended to be! I'm sure there's a way to silently unlink blocked links in the talk namespace, while allowing the edits to be saved. So, I support Marc's proposal -- I assume it could be something like the warning that shows up when we forget to include the edit summary (if we set the preference to be warned in that circumstance) -- that would be ideal. Especially, the edit text box shouldn't disappear like it currently does, forcing the user to go back in the browser history in order to restore the text (and I believe many don't even realize that and end up having to write it all over again, or giving up). I reinforce, this should only happen in talk pages. So, what do you think? --Waldir talk 09:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's already a bugzilla open to present users with the text they added if they trigger the edit filter. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, it's the bug #9416. That'd be nice if implemented. It's not exactly what's being asked here (automatically unlink blocked links in talkspace instead of blocking the edit), but it'd solve the problem, in a more generic way. Btw, one of the comments there mentions this discussion, which is one of the several occasions where this happened and frustrated users. I will watch that bug from now on, and will coment on this thread should it get fixed anytime soon -- even though, unfortunately, I seems it's not wise to hold my breath on this... --Waldir talk 09:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just yesterday 60 + talk pages got spammed, source soliciting for a link. while not getting into the merits of the link and the users intention, it does illustrate the vulnerability of talkpages if this was a blocked link. While I'm still against hyperlinking any blocked link anywhere, my top concers are still with opening up talkpages to the worst of the worst links, such as maleware, malicious scripts, infections from trojan exploits, child porn, or illegal content. Maby not so pressing, but a concern also as wikipedia servers are in the United States is the practice of Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [18]).[19] While a lesser danger to editors than malware, its inappropriate to link anywhere to a site that is known for carrying a works in violation of the creator's copyright.--Hu12 (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Restructure this page?

    Something that has bothered me for a while about this page is the awkward page structure for editing. It would be simpler to start new discussions if we broke this page into sub-pages, then used this page to provide links to those subpages and to transcule the contents of those subpages here for a central review page. To accomplish this, we could create these sub-pages:

    Do others have any opinions on this? Worthwhile to others, or a waste of time/effort? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Six more pages on the watchlist, six different links to archive and log, may be a bit cumbersome. Guess I'm not seeing why this would be a practical improvement to justify breaking up the board. I'm for keeping this in line with Meta, and the other 57 or so major language blacklists for now. Uniformity is important (IMHO), as many Meta., Commons. and en. admins cross work multiple MediaWiki Black/White-lists. Although transcluding the "Logging / COIBot Instr" makes sense; its a static, rarely edited instructional portion of this page.--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was already thinking of transferring the whole spam-whitelisting and blacklisting process to Wikipedia:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I notice in the editnotice for this page the injunction not to use the "new section" tab. The tab can be suppressed using __NONEWSECTIONLINK__. See Help:Magic words. Rd232 talk 11:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent, I've added __NONEWSECTIONLINK__ to the header, and removed the related text from editnotices  ;). Also transcluded the "Logging-COIBot Instr", FYI--Hu12 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]