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 A. B. (talk | contribs) at 11:21, 7 April 2010 (→‎Control4: explanation). 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 – 354508585 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    webs.com

    AOL IP's have been spamming this website into the pages of celebrities. There might be more AOL IP's, This IP is the newest one

    172.164.22.187 (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)

    Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5, Diff 6, and Diff 7. Please add it to the blacklist. Momo san Gespräch 05:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This concerns at the moment only:

    And the users:

    --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More charmed80048436282250.webs.com
    X-Wiki
    --Hu12 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Userpage spamming;
    Reggielhivich (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)
    112.202.39.140 (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)
    Spamming Tommy's Pet Paradise adsense pub-4763110844767107
    98.176.121.123 (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)
    76.212.197.220 (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)
    128.54.75.2 (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)
    98.176.244.31 (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)
    Spamming csi80048436282250.webs.com
    172.129.208.12 (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)
    172.163.104.139  (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)
    172.164.119.148  (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)
    Spamming eurodance4life.webs.com
    70.17.230.166 (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)
    Djnekke (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)
    Spamming freedomsudan.webs.com
    86.89.18.208 (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)
    Freedom Sudan (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)
    Spamming related webs.com sub-domains
    Japanhero (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)
    Reimon ultra galaxy (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)
    BlackBatrusJapanHero (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)
    KomoriRUS (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)
    KamenRiderDouble (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)
    SygtWES (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)
    Zzz3 (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)
    WFWEAF (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)
    WAFw (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)
    Ewhwsa (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)
    Wgfwgv (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)
    Afqwaeg (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)
    Astrfa (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)
    --Hu12 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    webs.com appears to be a shared hosting site (sometimes free, sometimes paid); hosted sites appear to be pretty widely linked from existing articles (judging by linksearch), so blocking the entire domain would have a significant impact on existing articles. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt cleanup is needed, however blacklisting would have minimal impact on articles in which existing webs.com links reside. Blacklisting prevents editors from adding a hyperlink to a blacklisted site. Any revision that already contains a blacklisted link or a reference, is infact not prevented from being saved or edited.--Hu12 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - I seem to recall blacklisted links used to prevent an article from being edited unless the links were removed. Good to hear that's been corrected. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Spamming of teennick80048436282250.webs.com
    172.129.208.12 (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)
    172.130.34.65 (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)
    172.162.57.56 (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)
    172.163.38.63 (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)
    172.163.104.139 (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)
    172.164.119.148 (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)
    172.129.54.16 (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)
    172.162.35.100 (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)
    172.129.153.224 (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, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    geoplus.com

    geoplus.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

    User creating new articles and adding subsections to others about products of geoplus.com. Also, user's user page seems to be a promotional piece for the company. Am adding this at the suggestion of sockpuppet-report admin MuZemike here.

    Geo-plus (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)
    Diffs [1], [2], [3], [4]. CliffC (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.jackass3d.net

    Looking at the page histories, for the last few months someone keeps spamming http://www.jackass3d.net to Jackass 3D and Jackass (TV series) to promote their ebay auctions. The IP keeps change one days its 76.172.177.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the next its 85.227.157.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and then its another one.

    Old Wikipedia mirrors

    nationmaster.com/encyclopedia: 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 statemaster.com/encyclopedia: 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

    These are not "spam" in the strict sense of the word, but often used misguided (unacceptable) sources. Nationmaster.com/encyclopedia is an old copy of Wikipedia, and Statemaster.com is a copy or mirror of nationmaster.com. Every few weeks, a sweep is done to remove these links, but it would be much easier to stop them from being added. There are e.g. for the moment 63 links to the statemaster.com encyclopedia[5], which are essentially (outdated) selfreferences to an advert-included version of Wikipedia. If there is a more efficient or procedurally more correct way of keeping these links out, feel free to guide me in the right direction! If this blacklisting is accepted, make sure to only blacklist the /encyclopedia part of these sites, the remainder of nationmaster is generally accepted as a source for info on countries. Fram (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this really spam? Would an edit filter be better? Stifle (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, I'm not really familiar with either the blacklist or the (abuse) filter, and this one seems to fall somewhere between the two. Links to the above sites are not added to spam them, to promote traffic, but because people honsetly believe they have found an interesting reliable source. On the other hand, they are not acceptable sources but mirrors with ads. Disallowing them will improve our articles, educate some editors, and relieve some strain from other editors (who are now regularly removing these links). How we best exclude these links is less important. Since they are external links, the spam filter seemed the most appropriate process. Fram (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a better way to find these links. There are 105 links to statemaster, and 570 to nationmaster. (Many of these links are from outside article space and therefore of little concern, though.) Zetawoof(ζ) 08:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm inclined to approve this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we add Answers.com to this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Answers.com contains info from many sources, including Wikipedia. I would prefer if every Answers.com link was replaced by a link to its source, but it's not really a pure Wikipedia mirror. Fram (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fallingrain.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    absoluteastronomy.com and economicexpert.com

    Links to these wikipedia mirrors get added constantly. They are mirrors of articles on wikipedia and people think they are valid sources of information to cite to. Nightkey (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Additional information needed--Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Inst' absoluteastronomy already blacklisted? Amazing... Not only is it, as a Wikipedia mirror, an unreliable and unwanted source, but it is the site of one of the more persisting Wikipedia vandals/sockpuppets. Blacklist please. Fram (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely agree with this listing. I haven't noticed anyone spam the links, but they are always being added, and are of zero interest to us. I've cleaned out several hundred of these links before, but there's still several hundred left. It's probably worth removing them before or in conjunction with blacklisting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, I've gone on mirror-removal sprees before, and agree we should almost never be linking to them. If there's an interest in blacklisting mirrors generally, I have a list of several more, including some that are just minimal transformations of Wikipedia article text. Many of these are being used to link someone's preferred "archival" version of an article, which is six kinds of bad idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    hotelsinrishikesh.in

    Serious block evasion. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    r.fm

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#r.fm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbsdy lives (talk • contribs)

    I've had a closer look at this, the results are horrific. See WikiProject Spam report. Also:
    Not sure if this should go to meta. MER-C 10:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    www.multanfancypigeons.co.cc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.141.230.226 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian travel citation spam

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    nfldraftdepot.com

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 09:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/

    sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/: 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 which has been added by a two of IP's (Latest IP was 123.3.170.133and the oldest 123.3.79.155), possibly the work of an individual who has a hatered or POV against the police. Bidgee (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    sites.google.com/site/dnapolice/

    sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/: 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 per above though this link was added to the New South Wales Police Force article by one of 123.3.79.155. Bidgee (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    cutedeadguys.net

    http://cutedeadguys.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I haven't gone to the link to find out, but I'm under the impression that this is a shock site, which has been repeatedly added to the ogrish.com article. It's not currently used anywhere else in Wikipedia, so collateral damage from blocking would be minimal. See the recent history of Ogrish (ever other diff for months) for details. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    works.bepress.com/daniel_bevenuto/1/

    Block evasion. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 12:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    fashionologie.com

    Fashionologie.com is a blog. User Ewestlake (and an IP which is linked by comments at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist) have added numerous links to this blog, some of them to pages with multiple links to blacklisted domain modelinia.com, e.g. [8]. Ewestlake refers to modelinia.com as "we" and there is little doubt as to the identity of the user, per previous abuse. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    vgchartz.com

    Notoriously unreliable; listed on WP:VG/S as an unreliable source. However, it's common that people use the source, and since the merits of the web site are limited to sales which are definitively unreliable and never allowed to be used, I feel protection is in order. The only exception should be made is on VG Chartz, where it should be linked to. But other than that, it is of no use and allowing it to be used will only cause a spread of misinformation and confusion that may make the GA/FA process bothersome; for example, The World Ends with You, in spite of being a GA, used VG Chartz, which shows the ineffectiveness of merely listing it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    sites.google.com/site/artbatiks/home

    sites.google.com/site/artbatiks/home: 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

    Daily adding above site in last few days to Matara, Sri Lanka, and Culture of Sri Lanka. Please see my reports in WP:RSPAM and another older report. Immediate remedy is needed here.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    globusz.com

    globusz.com - hitler spam. Don't know who put in The Tale of Genji yet.

    Site changed content. Original ~5-year-old link, so not vandalism. Site still "not encyclopedic". (Forgot to sign.) Saintrain (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird. First time I followed the external link, the site was definitely as described above. Site's contents have changed twice since then and now self-described as 'content no longer available'. Saintrain (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    umarikadu.in

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 07:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    touring-talkies.com

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

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 08:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    answers.com

    answers.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 Mirrors of old Wikipedia articles, also mirrors of Allmusic and other sites. Just like Absolute Astronomy and any other WP mirror mentioned above, there is absolutely no reason to include this website in any article whatsoever. It usually isn't spammed by any individual editor, but I have every reason to believe that it should never be linked. Why the heck wasn't this blacklisted ages ago? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Answers.com does pull information from sources other than Wikipedia, so it can often be a valid source. It's important to avoid self-sourcing from it, but blacklisting is a bit harsh. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. answers.com does include Wikipedia articles and information abstracted from them, but it's a cut above most of the "websponge" sites that just have a bunch of database dumps on them. Links here do bear watching, however. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Songfacts.com

    songfacts.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I have seen this site listed on various country music articles such as Old Things New, so I don't know if it's one user or several spamming it. A look into the site indicates that it is largely user submitted and therefore unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is massively linked, I would suggest some cleanup and more discussion on its use (is it all a result from spamming)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Some quick data (out of 3077 records):

    • Endorse this summary, I think it's stretching credulity to AGF with linking on this scale. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that this is not a site with pure user-generated content. Users may submit content but it is reviewed and fact-checked before being published; and it prefers interviews with artists for information, which is easy to check. From its origin and purpose, reliability would be important to it. The nature of the site and what it covers is that many links might be appropriate, and there is no way to distinguish without article by article review. The above accounts added a lot of links, but it's only roughly 700 out of 3077, and that might simply reflect several editors with an interest in music, who are aware of the site. After all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Resources lists it! If an editor is adding a lot of links that seem inappropriate, the editor can be warned to discuss in article Talk first, or even short-blocked if the editor is not responsive. Blacklisting is, by guidelines, the last resort. --Abd (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Abd, the three IPs with > 600 edits between them are SPA's. Moreover, 81.109.97.242 (talk · contribs) stopped editing on 21:08, 13 July 2009, where 86.26.123.204 (talk · contribs) started on 18:50, 14 July 2009; 86.26.123.204 stopped editing on 8 September 2009, where 86.26.123.197 (talk · contribs) started on 18:33, 9 September 2009 and edited until now. Though that does not prove that that is one single editor, I would find it very, very strange that three independent editors with the same provider stop and start exactly at the same time as one other stops, etc. etc. I would conclude that it is some 'semi static' IP. There are warnings on the talkpages of the first two, to which there was no response. Both Pvae and ndugu are usernames which are named (or edit themselves) on Songfacts, but without a checkuser we don't know whether they are the same, and seen the pattern, they appear to be different editors. Still, also those two have a strong air of a SPA around them.
    That a project is naming it, does not mean that it can not be spammed in an uncontrollable way. It might be a reason to be a bit slower with blacklisting.
    The last IP seems to discuss, which suggests that we may get somewhere. I agree with you that blacklisting should be a last resort, and that it may be a bit early, but the spamming should really stop now, and previous additions should be carefully examined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't look like WP:REFSPAM to me. Googling "songfacts ashford kent" (where the 86.26 IPs geolocate to) suggests that it is a contributor to the site who is using it as a source here, rather than a conserted effort to spam the project with links. That said, the website is not a reliable source (it is effectively a wiki) and therefore we shouldn't use it as a reference. I've posted at Wikiproject Songs as it would be useful to get some input from them before any decisions are made on whether to remove the links. Smartse (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Smartse. >600 edits by one SPA editor, and two other editors who have a huge/complete preference for this site is stretching AGF quite a bit. It may not be owners of the site adding this, but contributors to the site also have a conflict of interest. I think I will stay with my previous conclusion: previous additions should be carefully examined (which probably means: rigorously cleaned) and when this persists, blacklisting should be considered. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    costabrava-rentals.co.uk

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 05:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    bestofchatroulette.com at Chatroulette

    This site has been actively spamming article Chatroulette, esp.:

    Including most recently:

    • Readded 23 February[9]
    • Removed 3 March along a buncha spam[10]
    • Readded 5 March[11]
    • Removed 5 March 2010[12]
    • Readded 6 March[13]
    • Removed 6 March, this time with antispam comment[14] and user warning at User talk:Tag 33
    • Readded 7 March via an undo[15] (so we know the guy is aware he's breaking the rules and doesn't care)

    By its very parasitic nature, this site has no current or future value by itself for any encyclopedic article, has an obvious personal interest in repeatedly spamming Chatroulette against any rule in order to ride its current popularity for profit, and has done so. I see no reason NOT to block it one way or another. 62.147.25.111 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    e-castig.com

    e-castig.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

    Seen this being added by 86.171.89.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Typical "spam your link to earn points for prizes" site according to a quick google search. O Fenian (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    be-the-healthiest.com

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

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    lookatperu.com

    links

    NOTE: the above URL redirects to: www.247rep.com/machu_picchu/index.html

    accounts
    see also

    Multiple SPA accounts have been adding the link over more than a year, with no discussion or even edit summary despite warnings. Current IP is edit warring over the addition of the link, inserting a claim that it was sponsored by the government - however, the site is over-run with tourism spam with multiple adverts and links to travel recommendations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    thepetitionsite.com

    We are blocking '\bpetition(?:online|s)?\b' (which takes out pretty much all petition sites), but apparently there are still many, many to:

    Many used inappropriately to get votes or as a primary source. I suggest immediate blacklisting and cleanup. These sites are used, albeit maybe in good faith, for nothing else than WP:NOT#SOAPBOX violations, and hence are spammy by nature. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    tv-memories.com

    tv-memories.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

    The site offers bootleg content of archive British television for sale. It is a direct violation of WP:COPYVIO. The articles are often relatively obscure, so blacklisting is necessary to ensure that this spam to illegal practices is identified quickly and removed by a bot. The JPStalk to me 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    youlay.net

    youlay.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

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 11:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    twocircles.net

    twocircles.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 Some anonymous users have been inserting news-items from Two Circles Network in the External-Links-section of several India-themed articles. See for examples Aligarh Muslim University, Asghar Ali Engineer and Syed Ahmed Khan. My questions are: a) Could we see TCN News as a reliable source? and b) if so, do these news-articles have added value in the External links-section? I should say we should delete them as for WP:NOTLINK; after all, Wikipedia is not meant to draw attention to the Two Circles-website. Jeff5102 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    africanmeccasafaris.com

    africanmeccasafaris.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Link was in several articles such as Lake Nakuru, Keekorok, Bamburi, Daphne Sheldrick. --21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    Free movies

    Could be potentially abused. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 10:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially is (almost always) not enough, was it abused, or are there problems with the site?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was used once in the site. Wikipedia does not support illigal pirating. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 10:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is spammed as well (see the COIBot reports linked). I have added it to XLinkBot, but am tempted to blacklist it, indeed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why don't you? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Right. Forgot that it was here. Here we go! plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hamptons.com

    hamptons.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com . Various users and IPs adding to The Hamptons article. I had the article semiprotected for a while, but when it lifted the links started happening again. Syrthiss (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    onemoveformula.com

    links
    accounts

    Note: An example link is "onemoveformula.com/Dogtraining.aspx", which is an article containing large amounts of text copied from Wikipedia with no credit given to Wikipedia (see dog article). An obvious sign of the copying is the text from image descriptions being copied into the paragraphs, without the associated image.

    Repeated addition of spam link despite removal and warning from multiple editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done by A. B. (talk · contribs) via this edit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    fnscarrifle.com

    Domains
    Users

    Site is of no encyclopaedic merit and all insertions appear to be spam. A rangeblock was needed to stop the spamming, hence I am now blacklisting it. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    vandemataram.com

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

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 08:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added by A.B. MER-C 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    realestatemenu.info

    links
    accounts
    prior discussions

    Repeated addition of link into multiple articles by multiple SPA accounts, despite multiple warnings. On-going for 3-4 months. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    easyvideoproducer.com

    4 warnings, only stopped when blocked

    Spam domain
    Related domain
    Account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    kosovoliberationarmy.com

    Inappropriate self-published advocacy site repeatedly used for articles on Balkan ethnic conflicts. Spellcast (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added by Spellcast --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yangshuo Hidden Dragon Villa spam on Wikipedia

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    f1tutorials.com

    Google Adsense ID: 5586436142094893

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    facts-about-herbal-tea.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Toshali Resorts spam on Wikipedia

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 09:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    travelinfo.my

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    sites.google.com/site/australianresourcewars/

    This is related to the sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/ and sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/ issue with one anon editor (under the IP range of 123.3.xx.xx) adding their personal website which has their POV. Today this (sites.google.com/site/australianresourcewars/) was added by 123.3.135.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the War on Terror, Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Military history of Oceania and Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War. Bidgee (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP editor (123.3.77.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has readded this link into the same articles, this link clearly violates, WP:BLP, WP:EL and WP:NPOV. Bidgee (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    sites.google.com/site/cnnnow/

    See the discussions above listed above this section. Bidgee (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Expert Network Group, LLC spam on Wikipedia

    Domain spammed:

    Accounts:

    References:

    Problem includes uncontrollable spam as well as personal attacks on editors asking the spammer(s) to stop. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See also:
    It's a mirror of the same site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pulse Trading:
    780 Third Avenue,
    8th Floor
    New York, NY 10017
    212.921.8181
    Expert Network Group, LLC
    780 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
    New York, NY 10017
    212.921.8181 TRADING
    "ENG's partner, Pulse Trading, whom ENG is registered with, provides pure agency trading and clearing ..."
    Given that they share an address and phone number, we should go ahead and block Pulse Trading links, too:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added: pulsetrading.com, expertnetworkgroup.com
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    Control4

    specifically: Control4.com, for use in article Control4

    Link is to a company that produces well-known home automation hardware. May have been blacklisted due to a new user long ago unfamiliar with WP:CORP, who was persistently posting the same spammy incoherent article each time it got speedy deleted. The manufacturer itself has no notability concerns or spammy problems that would merit blacklisting. Reswobslc (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Abuse report is here: [18]; article was created by a WP:SPA and smells of processed meat products despite Reswobslc's efforts to tone it down. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • For being made of processed meat, their hardware actually does a good job of allowing me to remotely operate my thermostat and lights without any telltale odor of rotting flesh. I wonder how they solder pork to a circuit board. Look, I think you have made an honest mistake. Control4 is a brick-and-mortar company (maybe 250 employees?) manufacturing relatively common appliances sold through brick-and-mortar stores. They do not sell magic juice or get rich quick schemes. I rewrote the entire article, none of the original content is present, I have nothing to do with Control4 (other than owning a home in which I've installed several of their products). I have been creating articles for years: Reswobslc (talk · contribs), and feel quite certain I approximately understand Wikipedia's threshold for notability versus spam well enough to know that this is nowhere near it. Please investigate more thoroughly. If you believe there exists a possibility of deep linked spammy content (which someone else suggested but which I couldn't find), please consider whitelisting the home page, or talking back and allowing me to see such inappropriate content for myself (especially if you happen to have a full URL to it). Thanks Reswobslc (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Control4 notable? If so, we want an article on it. I don't have time to research notability in depth, but a quick Google News search shows 76 hits in the last 30 days and a Google News Archive search indicates hundred in the last several years. Reswobslc is a trusted, established editor so I say, let's let him go to work on a neutral article. In that case, he'll want a link to the company's site. To minimize spamming by the company, I recommend leaving control4.com domain on the blacklist and adding one specific page such as www. control4.com/company/history/ to the Spam Whitelist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the company spams - any more than you'd expect spam out of Kenwood or Pioneer. It's not because I think they're "wonderful people" above the fray, but probably just common sense: spam isn't the typical way I'd expect to see a $700 lighting controller or a $2000 home theater amplifier being marketed (neither of which one can really buy by name, or install by one's self in the first place, and would probably come installed as part of a home theater package from a local business that specializes in that stuff). If you want to know if Control4 is notable, forget Google, grab your yellow pages, find a home theater dealer, call them up, and ask if they've ever heard of it. Chances are, they will probably say "yeah, we install it". Having seen the article speedied and labeled "spam" based on some years-old incident I suspect was likely a mistake and seeing how easily the "this is spam" trigger on admins makes me loathe to even bother arguing for its inclusion, though I concede my blank user page devoid of "userboxes" probably doesn't help and makes me look more like a newbie on first sight. The article is currently userfied at User:Reswobslc/Control4. My recommendation would be to just remove Control4 from the blacklist entirely and only reinsert it absent any evidence of any actual malice on these guys' part. If anyone can point me to even one instance of spamming by these guys, well I'd sure be amused to see it, and I would rescind any argument I've made to the contrary. Reswobslc (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, Reswobslc, don't shoot.
    • I've probably blacklisted more domains than just about any other admin, but I like to think I'm careful. I don't see myself as having an itchy spam trigger.
    • I can't afford a home theater, so I was unaware of Control4's name. Besides, nothing settles a notability dispute like several news articles -- and Google News is the best way to find them.
    • Believe it or not, I've seen uncontrollable spam out of larger companies before. If it happens over and over again, we have to blacklist it and then whitelist exceptions as needed.
    • I don't care what's on your user page, so don't worry about userboxes. As I already noted above, you're obviously a trusted, established editor.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a link summary for control4.com.
    Let's let COIbot research the link's past usage (it may take a few minutes or hours to return results):
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks, I appreciate the support, my comments weren't directed at your actions, which were clearly more thorough than those handling this in the past. I don't think I intend to "shoot" anyone, but I don't feel out of place treading lightly: I made what I thought was an improvement to an article, only to find it disappear outright - summarily speedy deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion" by one administrator, and cited as "processed meat" by another (above). This is the first time anyone has called my work spam, let alone two administrators on the same day, and yet I wrote it no differently than the two dozen (? I haven't counted) articles I've started/written over the years about unrelated topics (example example example example). The only difference is Control4 is on some archived abuse list somewhere and nobody can really explain why.
    I don't really blame anyone - their actions obviously weren't malicious and I understand the reality is that there isn't time to investigate every apparent spam and that without quick decisive action, spammers win. I am also unfamiliar with the spam log, the COI bot, and the tools used to sniff out spammers, and am unable to interpret (let alone refute) that log entry from the past. I suppose all I'm saying is that if Control4 is cursed and administrators are predisposed to hitting the "spam" button based on that log entry in the future, I've got better things to do than to persistently canvass for its inclusion. All I can offer is my prose (in user space where it won't get deleted), my personal testimony that their equipment does what they say it does, my assertion there is no COI, and let the community (including yourself) do its thing for better or for worse. Thanks Reswobslc (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Best I can tell by the results of the COI bot (if I have understood its results correctly), the "spammer" culprit would be a Czech home theater company that sells a dozen different brands of gear and ostensibly has nothing to do with the companies who make the gear save for being a dealer of their products... see this page: http://www.insighthome.eu/partneri.html (a website COI bot returned) ... am I on the right track? certainly this wouldn't be the mischief of Control4 any more than it would be that of Siemens or Bose... Reswobslc (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The link is blacklisted here, not on Meta, so it was blacklisted due to a local (en,wikipedia) problem. Most of the time, that means persistent link-spamming, but we occasionally blacklist a domain due to persistent article-spamming which appears to have been the case here. I will remove the domain from the blacklist. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 11:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    siver.org.ua

    I added some historical info from siver.org.ua/?p=226&lang=en and wanted to make an external link to it. The site has turned out to be blacklisted. It is strange as there are still links to it in Ukrainian and English Wikipedia. Of course the articles are written in journalistic style but they are on the basis of verified information checked by specialists. It's a humanitarian project supported by regional administration. I wonder which reasons coused it to be in the blacklist and if it is possible to remove it from Wikipedia's filters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.92.6.99 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    indiaeducation.net

    A genuine website on education in India for the benefit of the educational community. It contains excellent information on various aspects of education in India and should be removed from the blacklist immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.208.63 (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to anonymous requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
    Relevant history:
    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
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    clickok.co.uk

    Why is this site blocked at all? I have found it to be genuinely useful over the years and have tried adding it to the hero's journey / monomyth page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.171.60 (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This site is listed on the global blacklist, so we cannot do anything about it here. Please take your concerns to m:Talk:Spam blacklist. MER-C 02:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    digitpress.com

    Contains many interesting historical documents about video games and home computing in the 1980s, including a number of formerly internal-only memos that are invaluable for documenting projects that never saw the light of day. I can't find the original blocking. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. The site has tons of great, rare content on the history of video games. It makes no sense at all to have it blocked. --Stormwatch (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Original reason for blacklisting is here. There was heavy spamming of this site by multiple accounts over a lengthy period. I would tend to oppose removing the blacklisting. — Gavia immer (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Er, unless it gets removed from the blacklist while I'm typing this, of course :p — Gavia immer (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spamming is generally a user problem, as is the case here. If the user in question is still a problem, let's deal with that problem and not punish everyone else for their behaviour. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, Maury Markowitz. Certain problems extend so far and the spamming is so severe that blacklisting is the final and only solution. As someone else put it here, some time ago, sometimes a mosquito net is a better solution than swatting all the flies. It is not punishing, but it is an annoyance that good faith users all have to go through whitelisting. Remember that spamming is about making money, it is not simple vandalism. People really do an effort to spam (sockpuppetry, redirect services, SEO's, open proxies, Joe jobbing, etc.), for some it is their job, for others it is the way to earn money. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    just like blacklisting, de-blacklisting does not have to be 'indef'... lets keep an eye .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See (two discussions that were tracked):

    Sockpuppetry/coi spamming of about 2 years ago. A long time ago + good use .. lets try and have a look. minus Removed (but if it gets spammed too much, we may have to use this net again and go to specific whitelisting). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com

    I found the only link (so far) to provide support for MMA fighter Zoila Frausto's nickname and this has been the only source I have found to support the claim that her nickname came from Xena: Warrior Princess. I'll keep looking for another source that states the same information.I didn't find this website on either list listed as examiner.com so it may be on here already.(MgTurtle (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

    Due to past problems, the spam incentive, it being a unreliable source, etc., de-blacklisting of the domain is no Declined, but you can ask for whitelisting on a specific link on examiner.com on the whitelist, so  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hellotxt.com

    Can you tell me why the web service/social aggregator Hellotxt is blocked as a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoRoHello (talk • contribs) 15:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisted on meta (not here), URL-shortener (see m:Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=1715863#Lots_o.27_URL_shorteners). Please use the normal link and not these services. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry I don't understand. I am an employee at Hellotxt, and I want to create a page that explains and documents the service. It blocks me from doing this, since I want to include web address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoRoHello (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, that is something different. I would suggest you to create the page (you may want to start in your userspace, e.g. User:RoRoHello/hellotxt.com) without the link. Then you can ask to whitelist the specific homepage (e.g. hellotxt.com/about.htm) so that can be used as the external link. You can then include the link that is whitelisted, and the page can be moved to mainspace.
    I don't think the whole site will be de-blacklisted, as it is (apparently) basically a redirect service which can be used to point to other websites of which use is prohibited (they may even be blacklisted). You might want to read our conflict of interest guideline and the business FAQ before proceeding. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    444flower.com

    For use in the article 444 Flower Building aka Citigroup Center (Los Angeles). --emerson7 06:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can some Regex expert take a look at this? I see no specific entry for this domain on either this blacklist or the meta blacklist however some regex entry is blocking it.
    This is a benign domain and appropriate for this article. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is due to [0-9]+flower\.com on the global blacklist. I'll have a look into it further if I get chance but someone else might want to do so as well. Adambro (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I've removed the entry from the global blacklist. It dated back to 2004 and was amongst the earliest revisions of that list. Since there is no background on why it was added, it is very old, and it is getting in the way of this appropriate link, I've removed it. Adambro (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

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

    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

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

    I'll archive shortly. --Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Archived most--Hu12 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was splitting up MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log into monthly sections. MER-C 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi!
    I agree, but please inform me before doing that, because I'd have to modify my log-searching tool.
    It would be nice, if you could do it somehow similar to meta. There should be one all-containing archive page like [19]. -- seth (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=354508585"