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 Stifle (talk | contribs) at 11:46, 13 April 2011 (→‎historyandpolicy.org). 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 – 423842559 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    scribd.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 noticed Hu12 added a bunch of scribd.com links (one entry with some wildcards would have been sufficient; why all those?). I'm wondering, since scribd content consists (as far as I can tell) of original work posted by users or copies of copyrighted material, if anything on scribd would qualify as a WP:RS. If Hu12's additions are any indication, this blacklist could swell disproportionately with scribd links. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems scribd links are formatted in some form of unique document number (...scribd.com/doc/10935894/...), not by user name or ID. Those links are apart of one persistant spammers collection of spamlinks. Typical, Spamming, subverting the blacklist, vandalism ect type case. The log has a link to the case. I would agree, Amatulić, as to scribd... its a "honey pot" for WP:OR, WP:COPYRIGHT vios, and most things unreliable...perhaps this might be a candidate for a perminant block?--Hu12 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'd support general blacklisting with support for whitelisting documents deemed acceptable. A lot of POV pushers have used scribd documents as a way to imply that a real scholarly paper has been published on something when in fact scribd has no editorial function. They have also been used to store copyright violations, as noted in the scribd article. Also, while not a reason for blacklisting, it's true that a lot of well-meaning editors have used scribd for sourcing simply because it looks like a reliable source, even though it generally isn't. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One wouldn't need to blacklist the whole domain either, just \bscribd.com/doc/\b. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Found an old discussion supporting the same thing (note; the load time is long). Any way, there are currently over 7000 links of scribd on wikipedia. cleanup will need to be done first, otherwise we risk significant disruption. I think I recall someone was making a bot that could remove links, cant remember who. Seems there's quite a few sub-sections;
    • scribd.com/group/
    • scribd.com/share/
    • scribd.com/groups/
    • scribd.com/feeds/
    • scribd.com/explore/
    • scribd.com/community/
    • scribd.com/store/
    • scribd.com/webstuff/
    • scribd.com/upload/
    • scribd.com/partners
    • scribd.com/people/
    • scribd.com/mobile/
    • scribd.com/full/
    • blog.scribd.com/
    • scribd.com/collections/
    • scribd.com/press
    Authors pages are located in the root.. scribd.com/LauraNovak..--Hu12 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority (5000+ links) are for scribd.com/doc/*. We could chip away at the most obvious ones first, such as scribd.com/(store|group|groups|community) and blog.scribd.com. I also see a few scribd links that match a familiar Wikipedia username.... looks like somebody trying to create their own article references. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've revertlisted scribd.com on XLinkBot, which might help to keep mainspace a bit clean. Seen this post, I would support blacklisting this. Note, we do not need to clean before blacklisting (pages with the link will still save), as long as they go ASAP afterwards. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "We do not need to clean before blacklisting". We don't? How does that work? And would this explain why I'm able to save blacklisted links in the helium.com article? Just curious how this works; I'm fairly new to working on this list. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd really like clarification on the question I posed above: If we blacklist something, how are articles affected that already contain the link? If someone happens to edit one of those pages, will the link indeed still save, as Dirk Beetstra claims above? If this is true, then blacklisting something that appears in 7000 places on Wikipedia wouldn't be disruptive, would it? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Existing links already contained in articles will not disrupt, or block editors from saving changes. Only newly added links will be blocked. however, if a link that is already in an article is removed....it cannot be re-added. This wasn't the case a few years ago, when existing links would blocked any article from being saved untill the effected url was removed. I sometimes forget that fact (above)..LOL. Blocking shouldent create usability issues in articles that currently contain this link...--Hu12 (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    northvegr.org

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

    On hundreds of our older and poorly referenced articles northvegr.org is currently used as a reference. This website, which not only claims copyright on a horde of freely available public domain material (see prominently placed "© 2009 New Northvegr Center." below menu bar) and is also commercial (see "sponsors" section; [1]—get your hair styles, online poker, Indian recipes, medical alert systems, mortgage advice, etc, here folks! But not before you get your Cafepress Northvegr coasters [can't link due to Cafepress blacklisting]) seems to be a leftover from those hazy Wikipedia years where referencing was optional but an external link would do, and sites like Project Gutenberg, Internet Archive, and Google Books were just coming along, thus making something like this handy, despite the obvious issues.

    Fortunately, those days have long since passed, and, nowadays, the (largely 19th century) material that northvegr.org hosts and draws revenue from can be found complete on the aforementioned websites. As a result, this site serves no purpose on Wikipedia other than to simply funnel traffic (and thus revenue) to it. In other words, northvegr.org is simply spam. Worse yet, it is spam that openly proclaims that Wikipedia allows it as a source (along with some other eyebrow raising "credentials") on the northvegr.com home page!

    This needs to end. And, after, is there a bot or something we can use to purge these hundreds of dusty old articles of links to northvegr.org? We would just need to kill the link to the site and the name, wherever it may appear. In the mean time we're just pointlessly pumping traffic (and revenue) to this website. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Point of clarification: The original Northvegr Foundation is defunct and the site is now the home of an unrelated group using the name; therefore, the copyright notice (note the "New" in New Northvegr Center), the Cafepress link, etc. are not associated with the organization to whose texts editors were originally linking. Moreover, the changeover has broken all the text links; the site has been reorganized and last I looked, was narrower in what it offered. All that said, I agree, we should get rid of these links; they are almost always replaceable, and moreover, most of Northvegr's texts were typed into their website, not scanned, with frequent errors and changes. I have been replacing them as I edit articles; I agree that it would be simpler and might be better simply to blacklist and remove them. --Yngvadottir (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    An unrelated owner of a domain name breaking all those original links isn't a reason to blacklist, it's a reason to clean up the articles. To blacklist a site, we need to know if there's a recent history of spamming in behalf of this new, unrelated site. If all those existing links are broken, that suggests they have simply aged and need to be removed. Unfortunately COIBot chokes on the number of links so it isn't of help here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that this is not the place to request blacklisting of a site that is clearly commercial in nature and employed all over Wikipedia? If not, where would I go to request this? And where would I go to request a bot remove all of these commercial links? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the place to make such requests, but no evidence has been presented that the site deserves blacklisting. We don't blacklist sites just because they are clearly commercial. We don't blacklist sites just because someone requests it. We blacklist sites that have a history of abuse. The domain has changed hands, the site is now different, and the old links no longer work. Therefore, no compelling reason has been presented to include it in the blacklist. If you can present any evidence at all that the current incarnation of northvegr.org is being spammed on Wikipedia, then present it. For now it may be more appropriate to add it to XLinkBot's list as a preventive measure.
    The domain northvegr.org originally belonged to the Northvegr Foundation, a private educational foundation focused on archiving knowledge of northern European pre-Christian history. See their archived "About us" page. That's far different from what the domain is today. Looking at a few random dead links archived at http://www.archive.org, it seems that the links have value. Therefore they should not be deleted, but rather replaced with their archived equivalents.
    As to your last question, Wikipedia:Bot requests is the place to request action from a bot. I don't know if there's a bot to replace dead links with archive.org pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we've presented plenty of evidence why the site should be blacklisted above; this material is available elsewhere, for free, and unmodified at that. Further, the modern site certainly is non-academic and bears an agenda (see anti-Rydberg page, for instance, and various other pages); it is not a reliable source by any standard. The situation with the old site has also been mentioned above, which I believe you will discover if you read the posts above. There is simply no reason to link to Northvegr now; this material, in its unmodified, un-"transcribed" entirety, can be found on superior sites, as also mentioned above.
    However, that said, it's water under the bridge, as far as I am concerned, as long as the current domain goes on the block list as a preventative measure. The dead links can be handled by hand; if they need to be redirected, then they can just be redirected to superior, neutral sites that contain the actual, non-transcribed material. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No actual evidence of abuse has been presented. Nearly all of the 700+ links to northvegr.org were placed before the site changed ownership. The new site is not implicated in spamming. Therefore, this request is no Declined.

    Links to the current site should be removed or replaced. If you do find evidence that links to northvegr.org are being spammed on Wikipedia, feel free to file another request. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    peakdistrict-nationalpark.com

    peakdistrict-nationalpark.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 owner of this website has added numerous spam links from Peak District related article back to his own commercial website. 50+ edits alone were done yesterday and this resulted in an indefinite block and a lot of work for several Editors, Admins and a Beurocrat in deleting them. The website owner admitted asking his son to add the links on this talk page:- User talk:ShaggyAlonso. I have noted that the spamlink used:- 'www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.com' has been inserted into a multitude of other pages as both external links and mainbody text references, as per the one I've removed from Great Longstone (from which Warofdreams had just removed the Same EL spamlink from) and Odin Mine. In addition there are multiple dead links using 'www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info', also used as references. Although these can eventually be sorted by visually checking all Peak District related articles I wonder if having those two web addresses added to the blacklist would work a lot quicker and also cure the potential problem of having the links re-inserted by anon IP's? Richard Harvey (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    in addition to the obvious, Problematic is the "long term" multiple sock accounts used, for example looking at the history of Great Longstone, Accounts;
    ShaggyAlonso (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)
    Tubbymorton (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)
    217.155.200.129 (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)
    have consistently spammed since October of 2008. ShaggyAlonso admits to being the owner of peakdistrict-nationalpark.com which is a google ad client # 0360457045880478. Earlier examples inlude Sim Bowman Owner of Cotswolds-stay.co.uk and chilterns-stay.co.uk requesting "sister sites" be added back in 2006. Seems this user runs multiple related "made for adsense" sites.
    More;
    Stay (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)
    Snowdonhotel (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)
    Staysnowdonia (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)


    Adsense pub-0360457045880478 Spammed
    Adsense pub-0360457045880478 Spam Related
    --Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All those domains except northwalescottages.net and peakdistrict-nationalpark.com can be handled by one simple regex such as \bstay[\w-]*\.co\.uk\b and collateral damage is unlikely. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, thanks Amatulic. plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    dazeddigital.com

    Long, long term spamming, involving clear COI accounts, and many 'SPA'-like accounts:

    IPs
    • IPs seem to be pretty volatile, difficult to discern.
    1. 62.244.179.114 (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.
    2. 94.173.47.209 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    3. 92.8.224.179 (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)
    4. 90.198.95.13 (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)
      • one edit: diff (replacing links)
    5. 86.176.59.58 (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)
    6. 86.147.75.206 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    7. 82.132.136.206 (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)
    8. 86.131.226.173 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    9. 82.45.183.153 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    10. 84.12.11.18 (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)
    11. 84.12.54.138 (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)
    12. 82.9.245.239 (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)
    13. 81.110.118.80 (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)
    14. 79.146.246.9 (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)
    15. 82.2.200.213 (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)
    16. 79.123.3.186 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    17. 24.5.25.216 (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)

    Note: The IPs are less clear, some are 'SPA' (but on a volatile IP that does not say too much - they may have hopped to a new IP). There are in the COIBot report many other IPs who added the link, many seem to have a 'music / film focus' in their edits, but it is unclear whether they are beloning here. Same here, there may be IPs which are accidentally SPA on a page which link them to this. Note also that a lot of the IPs here, and in the COIBot report, have deleted edits, which sometimes snowball to other SPA accounts (some are incorporated below), for the IPs it is difficult to see whether it is accidental or whether they are part of this.

    Users that are spamming / have only edited one single page, generally for only a short time)
    1. Louiseeveshanks (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, coi (see info) - warned & blocked
    2. Dazed1 (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)
      • Likely COI, spamming, indef.
    3. Greyisgood (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)
    4. lsdigitald (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, blocked in the act.
    SPA(-like) accounts involved with dazeddigital.com link additions
    1. A-net europe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    2. Amancalledthesun (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)
    3. Amapola Sanchez (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)
    4. Amolia (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)
      • Focussed on Tatty Devine, some edits to other articles, but still relating to Tatty Devine
    5. Amurrayleslie (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)
    6. Anthony Maule (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)
    7. Artlondon (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)
    8. Artparis (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)
      • two usernames with similar usernames .. may be coincidence - naah ...
    9. AwkwardTwig (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)
    10. Baileyrebecca (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)
    11. Bengough99 (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)
    12. Blaxendale (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)
    13. CircleC (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)
      • Two abandoned userspace drafts
    14. Creamsponge (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)
    15. Damondash (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)
    16. Davebattjes (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)
    17. Deaconbagshaw (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)
    18. Dodgenitrate (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)
    19. Dpersohn (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)
    20. Drmasonesq (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)
    21. DrumstixX (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)
    22. Dsantamaria (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)
    23. Dstricke (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)
    24. Echoparkrecords (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)
    25. ErinE1800 (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)
    26. Gorillaforty (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)
    27. Gypslincs (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)
    28. Halleluwah hits (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)
    29. Hector douche (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)
      • Styleslut, strongly defended the deletion of it.
    30. Hfa2009 (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)
    31. Indiejane (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)
      • Only one repair to one article, diff
    32. Informersnake (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)
    33. Intothegalaxy (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)
    34. Iwakami (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)
    35. Jacyv (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)
    36. Jamesbrowney08 (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)
    37. Jarvis 888 (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)
    38. Jasmine2020 (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)
    39. Jimcolvill (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)
    40. Joeldra (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)
    41. JohnMavrickZoe (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)
    42. Katie2580 (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)
    43. Kortgech (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)
    44. KxDoom (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)
    45. Letan77 (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)
    46. Lexoleum (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)
    47. Lsimmonsstudio (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)
    48. Lynhagan2009 (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)
    49. MarkScottWood (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)
      • Kate MacGarry, which is related to Chicks on Speed, for which we already have two other SPAs .. MarkScottWood also links others to Kate MacGarry by adding the external link katemacgarry.com
    50. Meloxtra (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)
    51. Nataliae (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)
    52. Milnertim (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)
    53. Milnertim006 (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)
    54. Munter boy (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)
    55. Naturalfreshness (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)
    56. NoNameR (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)
    57. Osyth11 (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)
    58. Panilaes (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)
    59. Parallelsfm (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)
    60. Paulbertmode (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)
    61. Playwithyourradio (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)
    62. Posiedon24 (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)
    63. Rebeccarumble (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)
    64. Rodsontherocks (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)
    65. Ropeface (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)
    66. Rvrbprk (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)
    67. Samdejong (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)
    68. Sarahanorak (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)
    69. Shpies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    70. Silkyfreckly (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)
    71. Slightofhand (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)
    72. Soitlautre (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)
    73. Taeko Kasahara (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)
    74. Tatkins73 (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)
    75. Thesocialregistry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    76. Theabbotoflondon (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)
    77. Theleatheregg (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)
    78. Titania22 (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)
    79. Trianglerage (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)
    80. Warhol57 (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)
    81. Willyparks (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)
    82. Worshiplover123 (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)
    Users with a significant focus on Dazed & Confused (magazine) and/or Dazed Digital and/or Another Magazine
    1. Lqyamw (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)
      • also using dazeddigital as a reference.
    2. Melonbanane (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)
      • also using dazeddigital as a reference.
    3. 79.123.3.186 (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)
      • also adding dazeddigital links

    Note, all these accounts are somewhere in their edits linking to dazeddigital.com (or SPAs on articles where others relate them to dazeddigital.com), and many seem to be only editing their 'own' article. This reeks like impersonating sockpuppetry. Much of the content is still there, and seems to have been adopted properly. But it feels wrong.

    I blocked yesterday an editor for 31 hours after they clearly showed to know that they had a final warning ... Leaving this here for further review. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I am turning paranoia here .. but is it coincidence that there are on these articles so many 'throw away like' accounts active? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Its not paranoia, is mass corporate promotion. AnOthermag.com, AnOther Magazine and AnOther Man are part of the publishing group the Dazed Group, alongside Dazed & Confused and DazedDigital.com. We Ran into something like this previously, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Dennis_Publishing_Spam-2, albeit much larger... --Hu12 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    sports-history.com

    sports-history.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 don't know what User:Klethegr8's association with this website is, but they seem intent on adding links to this website to various UEFA Champions League season articles. This website is not recognised as being particularly reliable by WP:FOOTY, so I suggest that the site be put on the spam blacklist to prevent any further additions. – PeeJay 16:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. I don't see anything about this site mentioned in the WP:FOOTY archives. Instead, Klethegr8 has been blocked indefinitely as a spam-only edit-warring account. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    futureanalyzer.com and futureanalyzer.blogspot.com

    Spamming from multiple Romanian IP addresses to articles about technical analysis of financial markets. Over 30 incidents since February. I indef blocked one account in February for spamming and username policy violation. The most recent IP has been more prolific appearing every 3 days or so to re-insert the links. I noticed the blogspot link started appearing in the past week. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    dogswar.ru

    dogswar.ru: 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

    Multiple Russian IPs spamming a Russian website across dozens of articles. It's a personal website (very poor quality) and it's written entirely in the Russian language. I have placed warning templates on the IP talk pages, but they have been ignored. Each IP spams 10-20 different Wiki articles before the IP is retired and a new IP resumes the spam a few days later in the same fashion. Diffs:

  • Special:Contributions/188.16.139.251
  • Special:Contributions/94.51.37.200
  • Special:Contributions/88.205.182.34
  • Special:Contributions/94.51.44.81.
    ROG5728 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally:  Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 11:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    historyandpolicy.org

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

    Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-11/In the news. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant .. citing from the Signpost: "In a letter to The Guardian, responding to an editorial that had called "academics serious about public erudition" to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia (see below), three UK professors from "an independent network of nearly 300 historians" wrote that they had "discussed the pros and cons" of doing so, and "decided to insert links in the references of Wikipedia entries" to their own website, http://www.historyandpolicy.org/. "The result was startling: a few dozen links increased visitors from Wikipedia to H&P significantly, moving the online encyclopedia from below 10th to the third most popular source of traffic to our site. We intend to continue embedding links to our papers in relevant Wikipedia entries." - Now I wonder, we see here 'three UK professors from ...' ... and the main editor adding this being:
    .. does this mean that this is a shared account? And edits like "Undid revision 402752218 by Pm master (talk) - what happened to assuming goodfaith?" ... is in striking contrast with the statement in the Guardian. WP:REFSPAM. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    Proposed removals

    vbs.tv

    I'm attempting to add a link to (vbs.tv)/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs at [2], instead of the current link which is a repost. I can't fathom why the site is blacklisted ... especially considering it has had a page at VBS.tv for over two years. Plexitox (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist to request whitelisting of specific pages on that site. Reasons for blacklisting are detailed here and here. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    numia.biz

    When i tried to add the site numia.biz i couldn't add that site since it is in blacklist. Some spammers unknowingly made our site in the blacklist. So is it possible to remove this site from blacklist so that it can enhance my site popularity and benefical to public who are in need of some free online resources. Gretish (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. We are not here to help you "enhance [your] site popularity". Kuru (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    charlierose.com

    I have no idea why this has been blacklisted, but apparently it's recent. It's a PBS interview show which has half-hour and hour in-depth interviews, quite the opposite of the usual fluff provided. A full archive of each person's interviews is provided. Example of http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/1180 for Hosni Mubarak goes back to 1997. Certainly a valuable resource, and should be whitelisted. Flatterworld (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not blacklisted here.  Defer to Global blacklist. If you want to link to a PBS interview, it may be more appropriate to link to the associated PBS article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That IS what I was trying to do - THE ENTIRE DOMAIN IS BLOCKED! Flatterworld (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Delisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    gopetition.com

    The site never did anything wrong, but was blacklisted due to someone "preemptively" adding it to the blacklist, claiming guilt by association with baseless comments like "email harvesting" and "online petitions are spam". GoPetition is a member network of over 10 million users that until this day has NEVER emailed any marketing material to their user base (not even internal marketing) or provided any email addresses to third parties EVER. We are one of the few cause related sites that does not sell users information to political parties (i note the three largest cause related sites are not blacklisted even though they actively harvest and sell users information, which ironically has made them more successful). GoPetition is also used by thousands of reputable organisations including many non-profits, that continually request we register our background information with Wikipedia. I don't care if you prevent petition links, apart from one or two exceptions i don't believe they have a place in Wikipedia either. I also believe many petition/cause sites are dodgy, but we are not and consequently i would like to write a Wikipedia article providing background information on our story as requested by our users and denied by someone making baseless assumptions.

    [3] [4]

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mish15 (talk • contribs)

    I am sorry, these sites are not blacklisted for '"email harvesting" and "online petitions are spam"' ... online petitions almost by definition fail our core policies and guidelines. I expect you will have to be on the local whitelist to have a specific link for the homepage of gopetition whitelisted (e.g. the home.htm, index.htm, about.htm or similar). hence,  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ok thanks for the quick follow up. I'll refer to the whitelist. --User:mish15 —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    Troubleshooting and problems

    markets.com

    Prompted by A. B. (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), I am posting here about a problem with the blacklist that affects the Ingles article. You can read the half-page or so of gory details starting at Talk:Ingles#company's website is blacklisted, but I'll cut to the chase. Currently, the en blacklist includes "\bmarkets\.com\b", added in November 2008 in response to linkspamming by 98.219.81.190. But the regex as it is now blacklists any website ending in markets.com, including ingles-markets.com, the official website of Ingles, a U.S. regional supermarket chain. I'd like someone to review the collective effort at troubleshooting we've done recently, and fix the root cause of the problem. Doing so would allow me to remove the comments from around some Ingles company web pages I tried to cite as references. IMHO, the root cause is "\bmarkets\.com\b" and that the change would be to change the regex to blacklist only .markets.com (note the period/fullstop character at the beginning), which to my primitive understanding of regex should be coded as "\b\.markets\.com\b". Thanks. 67.100.127.254 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Note that CutOffTies (talk · contribs) ran into this problem in the past, resulting in an addition of an item to the whitelist; if the suggested fix is implemented, that whitelist entry could be removed. 67.100.127.254 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: What's wrong with adding another entry to the whitelist? I can't imagine that Wikipedia will need more than a couple of links to this site.
    The proposal above would still allow linkspam to markets.com (with only http:// prepended). A fix might be more along the lines of \b\.*markets\.com\b, which should capture both markets.com and www.markets.com, but not anything-markets.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised I got the regex wrong; it was an off-the-cuff untested speculation. As far as the suggestion to just continue to put exceptions on the whitelist, I'm hoping that after all the detailed research as to what the root cause was (see Talk:Ingles#company's website is blacklisted for the complete details as well as the assertion by A. B. (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) that this "definitely needs to be fixed"), I would think its better to change the original miscoded regex instead of having to patch in new legitimate references one-by-one. While the Ingles article led to the discovery of the problem, it may not have been the only article affected case thus far and it is certainly not the only one affected in the future. To confirm how only whitelisting some refs for Ingles would affect future edits involving other, unrelated domains, I tried to refer to a emerging-markets.com reference as part of the following minor improvement to Energy Policy Act of 2005:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005&diff=422953072&oldid=420785200
    As expected, I had to comment out the actual url for the reference like I did in the Ingles article. It would be disappointing to keep piling on various whitelist entries when we know what the root cause of the problem really is. 67.100.127.191 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a problem in regex matching of a leading part of a URL. If you look at the edit history of the project page, you'll see I tried several experiments, all of which failed when I tested them in the sandbox. The site http://gskinner.com/RegExr/ proved useful for testing, but the one that I was sure would work (it performed properly when testing on that site) didn't work here.
    The problem is this. Of these three domains:
    ...we need a regex that will match the first two, but not the third. And apparently the regex needs to be sandwiched by \b...\b. My tests on the gskinner site suggested that I could get something to work without the leading \b, but when I tried it here, it didn't work as expected. I was unable to formulate a regex that matched only the first two URLs while using \b on the ends.
    If anyone has a solution, I'd like to know because I've encountered this problem before. For now I have to give up, and recommend that pages be whitelisted as needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know any specifics w.r.t. how the blacklisting support works, but I can try to build on your analysis. I consulted a couple of references:
    http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/regex.html
    http://www.sdsc.edu/~moreland/courses/IntroPerl/docs/manual/pod/perlre.html.
    It appears that combining \bstuff\b , which matches any occurrence of "stuff" as a separate word, and [character set] , which defines a character set, perhaps accomplishes the purpose. I tested
    [/\.]\bmarkets\.com\b
    on http://regexpal.com/ and it worked on your three test cases as well as the extra test case I mentioned above and some others. 67.101.6.162 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2011 (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

    Automatic archiving

    Due to the format of this this page and how we archive, most archive bots cannot function here. However I just took a few minutes and wrote a custom script that should do it for us. It makes one change to convert {{LinkSummaryLive}} to {{LinkSummary}} in order to bypass any spam filter issues. (I may need to adjust it some more). There are two variables that can be configured: stale conversations, and ones tagged with templates indicating defer/done/not done ect. Right now my thoughts would be to set stale conversations to 30 days, and those tagged to 15. Thoughts? ΔT The only constant 05:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To keep this page clear, I'd like to see automated archiving - though I also like the thing we do on the whitelist: we have the open requests, which get either granted or denied, they then get moved to an appropriate section (IMHO, that could be after 24 hours), and later archived (which would be nice after say, 1-2 weeks, bit depending on size). At least they are then quick out of the 'open' area, which makes it easier to focus on what needs 'quick' attention, while still having the posts handy for some time if the problem expands to other areas, or if there are quick de-listing requests.
    I would also suggest that both 'live' links get converted (and the {{LinkSummaryLive}} converted to {{LinkSummary}}) when moving the requests.
    All in all, yes, please! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to create the the new sections I can tweak the code. I would request that each "section" retain the primary '=' section level, so that we are not mixing section levels, but it would be trivial to adjust my archive code. Just let me know the time periods, and I could have the code operational in less than 24 hours, and then would go ahead with the BRFA process. ΔT The only constant 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To the original question ... what is the bot name? Has it already been approved, or is it pending approval? For time duration, I think we can start it with 45 days stale, and tighten it up later if needed. I would prefer to have longer than needed as the starting point and adjust down, rather than too short and adjusting up. My only other concern is ensuring there's an easy to access emergency off switch (possibly linked from the header for this page). --- Barek (talk) - 18:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not filed for approval yet, I wanted to flush the idea out, find issues, get those addressed, before ever going to the BRFA process. As for the shutoff, that should be trivial, just a matter of configuring a wiki page. ΔT The only constant 18:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Before proceeding any further, you may want to read Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links, which is proposing some changes to where these requests are submitted, as well as how the requests on the page are structured. --- Barek (talk) - 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible malware

    There's a question at RSN about a possible malware site. Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Please_check_the_source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ran the url through a few malware/threat detectors, seems its ok.
    Here are a few scanner tools that could be usefull.
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=423842559"