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 Dr. Blofeld (talk | contribs) at 13:26, 22 April 2010 (→‎Fallingrain.com). 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 – 357616937 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]
    The problem is that editors add these link and even use its data in good faith believing it to be reliable source. The HUGE problem is that experienced geo editors on here are fully aware of its pitfalls and know that there are thousands of articles containing false data from this site. If you do not thinkin this is concerning I seriously question you as a wikipedian. We should not tolerate inaccurate articles. Even external links to this site presents false data to our readers. If we irresponsibility continue to ignore this problem and fail to recognise it as a bad source, lesser informed individuals will continue to generate many more false articles like Subego. Before you know it we'll have 20,000 articles using referenced data to falling rain and the accuracy of geo articles will continue to degrade. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from requested removals to requested additions. I am minded to grant this request, but as there is some opposition, a consensus is necessary. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference link for easier review:
    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From several years' experience with this and the meta blacklist, I've seen that blacklisting domains that are widely used in good faith by regular editors results in massive multi-day disputes spread over multiple noticeboards. Furthermore, it's nice to talk about writing a script to remove simple links from an "external links" section, but what about in-line references? I've seen attempts to do that with scripts that have turned into real messes, both mechanically and editorially. If you remove the reference, do you remove the assertion it supports? Or do you find a new ref? Or do you just leave a {{fact}} tag? Expect an article-by-article debate over in-line refs.
    If you really, really want to blacklist these links, I suggest you first build a much broader consensus than you'll get just from the editors that watch this board. I'd start an RFC and post announcements with links at every geographically-related WikiProject as well as the Village Pump.
    As for me, I'm laying low. I've seen the fights over 500 dubious links and this will be much bigger. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I will run this as a bot task if you can demonstrate sufficient consensus for it, perhaps by initiating a thread at WT:EL or WP:RS/N, and notifying interested parties of the discussion (as A. B. suggests, notes at WP:VPM, geographic wikiprojects, and the like). –xenotalk 15:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Shereth, everything is demonstrably unreliable. OK first example I looked at. Lets try Birkelane, Senegal. Official statistics site here says it has a population of 4,196. Falling rain claims it has an "estimated" population of 8,046 here back in 1995. Now lets try Kalaat es Senam, Tunisia. Official statistics claim 5044 people for 2004 census. Falling rain claims 3278 people in a 7 kilometres radious!!! let alone the town. GROSSLY INACCURATE. I could provide you 9000 examples of the same thing in practically every place I can think of. I find it very concerning nobody thinks that this is a problem. If is was known BLP errors a bot would have sorted this long ago in panic. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Do take some ownership of the problem here, Blofeld! [7] I'm going to go ahead and proceed with removing the ones that are external links. –xenotalk 13:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We could at first start with XLinkBot revert both external links ánd references to fallingrain.com. That should bring the influx a bit down, and we might get an idea how it gets used by new and anon users (unfortunately it is more difficult to do it for regulars, which would be quickly met with big opposition).
    If there is deliberate referencing to fallingrain in order to incorporate false information, then I would regard that as a form of abuse which would be a reason to blacklist. But if most/all of the editing is in good faith, we indeed need a strong consensus here to blacklist the site, though I do not think that it is an absolute no-no to blacklist links if there is sufficient support to list it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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. [9]. 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[10]
    • Removed 3 March along a buncha spam[11]
    • Readded 5 March[12]
    • Removed 5 March 2010[13]
    • Readded 6 March[14]
    • Removed 6 March, this time with antispam comment[15] and user warning at User talk:Tag 33
    • Readded 7 March via an undo[16] (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)

    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]

    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]

    Adsense pub-6153640473971053

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 08:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bump MER-C 06:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mobile phone spam

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 09:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    pbsmodular.com

    link
    account

    Note: the URL http://216.144.168.210/ is the same site, so obvious COI issue.

    previous report

    Activity restarted today. Ongoing spamming to the Modular building article, dating back to November 2009. Request blacklisting due to persistent spamming behavior, replacing links, and above mentioned self-promotional COI nature of the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    drugandalcoholtest.us

    links
    account

    Related domains were blacklisted in January 2008 [17]. ThemFromSpace 05:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    experthealthtips.info

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: the spamming continues, including link hijacking of ELs to government sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Russian art spam

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 08:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    qdultfiendfinder.com

    links
    accounts

    Repeated link hijacking, some with misleading edit summaries to attmpt to hide the behavior [18], [19], [20], [21]. See also report at WT:WPSPAM##qdultfiendfinder.com. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Added IP 125.236.130.86, which hijacked the official link with this one again today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    4yousoft.com

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 08:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    airsoftsentry.com

    link
    account
    relatedsites

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

    potatoricer.org.uk

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

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 08:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    tomakemoneyat-home.blogspot.com

    Domain:

    Related:

    • Note unusual spelling

    Accounts:

    • Note unusual spelling

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunroom spam

    Contact data redirects to:


    Related domains

    Same server:


    Previously blacklisted domains


    Spam accounts


    Reference

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    maxabout.com

    maxabout.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 09:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    siver.org.ua

    I added some historical info to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster 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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|--Herasimenko (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)unsigned]] comment added by 178.92.6.99 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    wikigender.org

    I recently created the WP article Wikigender, and was shocked to find that its official website wikigender.org was blacklisted. Now I have learned a little about spamming and blacklisting and whitelisting (much more than I want to know, honestly).

    How would this website's inclusion benefit Wikipedia (WP)? (Very little, in the short-term.)

    • In the long-term, all of humankind will benefit from people's access to knowledge, knowledge both on WP and on Wikigender. Wikigender will be helped by increased exposure for its website, whose goal at least coincides with WP's own goal. And if Wikigender is successful then WP and Wikigender can coexist long-term in a complementary fashion.
    • This Wikigender website was initiated by and is supported by the OECD Development Centre with the altruistic aim of helping us humans by improving our gender equality and thus, our productivity. Long-term, the latter will directly help both WP and the rest of humankind.
    • WP's linking to wikigender.org, increasing this website's exposure, cannot possibly provide financial benefit to this website, its user/editors, its staff or its OECD sponsor above – exactly the same as links to WP cannot financially benefit WP.

    If, however, in the early days after its March2008 launch some Wikigender users did make way-too-many links from WP directly to their own articles on Wikigender, then the links to articles perhaps should remain blocked. (I'm just guessing – I am totally ignorant about why this website was blacklisted by Hu12 on 13May2008.) If so, can you unblock the main website but leave all links to its articles blocked?

    Do whatever is the "right thing" to do. Also please remove the message I already left on Hu12's talk page, if that is appropriate. I'll try to check back every few days, to reluctantly learn more than I wanted to know... For7thGen (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to receive, presumably from a "spam-knowledgable admin", some understanding of why WP blacklists this home website itself?

    I am an ordinary citizen of both Wikipedia and Wikigender, somewhat familiar with both, and I simply can't believe the blacklisting of this homepage (wikigender.org) is needed. I posted my proposal for removal two days ago on 7Apr, which you can no doubt still find if desired. Even if blacklisting of links to individual articles on the above website is needed for some reason such as excessive linking, don't you have the technology to simultaneously allow a link to the homepage (wikigender.org) itself? Please do me (an ordinary WP user/editor) the courtesy of explaining WP's mysterious-to-me behavior. For7thGen (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll look into this, see what I can find. It was presumably blacklisted because most of the domain was spammed, but I'll have a look. Note that linking to wikis is discouraged per our external links guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    mystery solved. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, no, it is not .. I should get some sleep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was blacklisted due to editors who are highly involved in the website (e.g. User:Maulwofer helped launching the site, user:wikigender) tried to promote the site on-wiki. This included sending spam-emails to other wikipedia editors, apparently using multiple accounts, etc. etc. That type of 'abuse' is indeed a good reason to blacklist such site.

    As I said a bit before, it seems to be a wiki, and wikis generally fail our external links guideline. Do you think that the site is going to have widescale use in Wikipedia, or is it 'just' one link on the wikigender page. If the latter is the case, I'd suggest to whitelist e.g. the about.htm or something similar (so  Defer to Whitelist). Otherwise this needs to be discussed further. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Dirk, Many thanks for your excellent reply. (I've been away from contact with WP, is why I am this slow in expressing my pleasure at reading your friendly and thoughtful response and very-very helpful information.) It is a real joy to be on the same team with you!

    I'd agree that the WP:EL guideline is against linking even to the wikigender.org homepage -- at least until they've been stable for a few more years and hopefully have a much larger group of registered users. I need to find time to learn from your two bullets above and also to learn more about whitelisting. I'm really looking forward to all three, as well as to more of my own WP contributions. Gratefully, and appreciating your good work, For7thGen (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Warren Online

    • I wished to add a link to the Marc Warren (actor) wikipedia page for the unofficial fansite, Marc Warren Online, but was notified that it was blacklisted.
    • I believe that it should be removed from this list because it provides a comprehensive source of information relating to Marc Warren's work and that it would be of interest to many of the people that would want to find out more about him and his work.
    • This is the website- s7.invisionfree.com/Marc_Warren_Online/index.php
    What is his official website, without that information I have no clue which site you are talking about. If you leave the http:// off, you can save it here. Alternatively, put the domain into a {{LinkSummary}} template, or with nowiki-tags around it. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh .. I see that you said already. My mistake, sorry.

    You want to link to a forum, forums are generally discouraged. Moreover, you say it is the unofficial fansite, which is also discouraged (even official ones ..). Hence, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lulu.com

    Lulu.com is an online print-on-demand service, and has an article at Lulu (company). I'm not sure why it's been added to this blacklist, and can't see any reason on the discussion page. Both www.lulu.com and support.lulu.com are apparently blacklisted, which means any references to the website on that page, including home page links, references, information about licensing etc can't be saved. With the blacklist, this article contains lots of broken links of the form www lulu com and so on. Is there any information why it was added to the list, if any reasons were given at the time? Perhaps this could be reviewed? (Interestingly the german wikipedia page on the same company _can_ contain such links) Thrapper (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Here are previous discussions:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, and thanks for your links. Apologies if those links should have been findable :) Seems like there has already been plenty of discussion on this already. I wanted to link to the root url / but it seems linking to /en/index.php instead does work. I just removed the other references to help pages, licensing etc as I think it's more confusing with broken links.
    Perhaps the root url could be whitelisted, perhaps the blacklist could be restricted to product pages, but as it is I guess it's ok. Thrapper (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You sort of have to know how to look for these old records. As for blacklisting product pages and unlisting the root URL, that could be tricky, but I'm not an expert on regex. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    VBS.TV

    This is Vice Magazine's documentary channel. There are some fascinating documentaries and travel series on here, which are relevant for a number of articles. I just tried to post an external link to the Colombian Devil's Breath article about a hallucinogenic drug and found out it's blacklisted. Ridiculous. check www.vbs.tv Markeilz (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ridiculous, you say. See specifically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1#Long term Spamming of vbs.tv .. massive cross-wiki long term abuse using many accounts. If you need a specific link, I would suggest to  Defer to Whitelist, but delisting the domain is no Declined (actually, why was this not blacklisted globally anyway, it seems to be cross-wiki, and besides en.wikipedia also ar.wikipedia have the whole domain blacklisted). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uptight ban-happy admins will be the death of wikipedia. Or not, what do i know? Pretty obnoxious though. I clicked on a few of the "spam" examples you posted and they looked legit to me (interviews, documentaries, etc.). I'll take your word for it that there have been abuses in the past but it's a crime to ban such a quality site.Markeilz (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, Markeilz! Don't shoot.
    There are several types of sites that get blacklisted. Aside from a few obvious no-brainers (malware-infected sites, for example), most are low-value, commercially driven domains driven by get-rich-quick schemes or content-light, ad-heavy junk pages.
    Then there are the occasionally useful sites spammed for profit and Google page-rank. VBS fits in the second category. If our regular editors can't control the addition of links, relevantl or not, to our articles by spam-only editors, then we have to blacklist them. Then, as regular editors find individual pages they want to use, we whitelist them as needed at WP:WHITELIST. You're certainly an established editor here -- if you have a particular page you need to cite as a reference that meets our Reliable Source Guideline and Verifiability Policy, list it on the whitelisting page for discussion.
    As for removing the entire domain from the blacklist, I think that would be a bad idea, given its history here.
    Regards,
    A. B. (talk • contribs) ("uptight admin") 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Boo-urns! But fair enough.Markeilz (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Zen Technologies ltd

    Specifically: www.zentechnologies.com Zen Technologies Ltd is leading Training Simulators provider in world. It was blocked due to some unknown user might be used link in the unfamiliar stories. I am the webmaster of the company requesting you unblock the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.133.227 (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "due to some unknown user"... Nope! See WikiProject Spam report. In particular:
    Rejected MER-C 08:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:
    This domain may be related to a broad swath of domains first reported in January 2008 and eventually blacklisted in October 2008:
    Mgouthamreddy (see above) edited a link to asianhhm.com, one of the domains later blacklisted.
    Other discussions:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    minus Removed. Please let us know if you have any other domains to review.
    Mr. Reddy, you were right -- this domain should not have been blacklisted here since this blacklist only applies to the English language Wikipedia and your link was also spammed elsewhere[22]. I will list it on the global blacklist at Meta-Wiki.
    The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
    Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
    There have been rumours in various black hat search engine optimization forums that Google and other big search engines may be referring to our global blacklist when compiling their own black lists of search engine spam domains. Since these companies' decisions are beyond our control and are made independently of us, we assume no responsibility for them. Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting there, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. If they're using our blacklist, it's purely on their own initiative.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now moved to the meta blacklist.[23][24][25][26][27] --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems our Mr Reddy has just received an object lesson in the law of unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OUCH! Stifle (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Future Human Evolution

    i tried pasting the URL, but wiki wont let me, so I added a DASH between the two words.

    Specifically: http://www.humans-future.org/ take the dash out from the URL so humans and future are one word

    I'm shocked this is blacklisted, its an excellent resource for information on Post humanism, and would make an excellent addition to the external links on the post human article. Machn (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See:
    Sockpuppetry and inappropriate spamming. Moreover, the 'domain' .co.cc got blacklisted partially due to these editors (see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2009#co.cc), as they used that redirect service to circumvent the blacklisting. The second discussion I linked here is of interest, and shows the persistence of the editor(s). I looked at some links in the de-listing request, and they seemed to be copies of other documents.
    Could I ask you if:
    • The document(s) that you want to link are really the originals?
    • Consider whitelisting of the specific links you would need?
    Or do you see such widescale use that the link is better off removed from the list? Seen the edits and the persistence, I am hesitant to remove the blacklisting, as I am afraid spamming will resume. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "The information provided on this web site is of a general nature only and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual or entity. The information is not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date. " The site has no identified authority and is not a reliable source. It has been spammed and is riddled with adverts. The words "hell no" seem to me to cover this one nicely :-) Guy (Help!) 22:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should probably blacklist the .com version of the URL as well. - MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the .com site to the list. We'll probably have to watch out for more redirects, if their previous behaviour is any indication. --Ckatzchatspy 23:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Voobly.com

    It was black listed because someone spammed the link. This person does not represent us, he infact represents our main competitor. We are a volinteer run site and when I tried to add our site to a page I even included our competitors link to remain unbias, only to find out we were blocked.

    Here is the report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.173.108 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    professays.com

    We use wikipedia as a most valuable source for essay writing and we like to add our essays to contribute wikipedia as a source for research and writing. Today I found that all articles we placed are disappeared and we cannot contribute to wikipedia any more because we are in a blacklist. We never placed any ad and we never tried to use wikipedia for any commertial purposes but we placed only useful and original informational for wikipedia readers who use wikipedia like we do. Take a look at some our links added to wikipedia please. We ask you to put our website out of the blacklist please because we are not spammers and we believe our essays are informative, good for readers and contribute wikipedia pages in many ways.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union professays.com/essay-samples-on-american-history/union-vs-non-union/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_governance professays.com/essay-samples-on-business/essay-on-entrepreneurship-and-corporate-governance/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell professays.com/essay-samples-on-management/dell-inc-business-analysis/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropping_out professays.com/essay-samples-on-education/school-dropout-rates/

    Sincerely, Dim Zboryk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.126.25 (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm to essays about subjects. Moreover, this was spammed and you admit to have a conflict of interest. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 22 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 [28]. -- seth (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    cafepress.com

    I needed to link to cafepress.com - but was prohibited. Ban spammers not sites. --IceHunter (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You could post a request to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist, but it's likely to be denied unless there's a good reason for including it. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=357616937"