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 146.115.137.225 (talk) at 22:20, 11 January 2013 (→‎Proposed removals). 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 – 532608099 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    save-sara-tancredi.org

    While it is purported to be an online petition for the Prison Break character Sara Tancredi to return to the show's fourth season, it is nothing but an iPad spam. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Anybody home? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Additional information needed Evidence of Abuse?--Hu12 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am uncertain whether you would consider this abuse, but it was introduced within the text of the article about Sarah Wayne Callies, with no hyperlink (this is me removing it). Is there a way to prevent the text from being entered into an edit altogether? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    '\behowto.*\.com\b'

    There has been a number of these ehowto…com websites including ehowtocuregingivitis.com, ehowtotrainyourpuppy, etc. none of which are of value. Some of these we have individually blocked globally for WMF wikis, however, they are predominantly focused at enwiki. That being the case, I would propose that we look at this broader filter locally to strain out the vast bulk of this dross. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't be opposed to \be?howto[_-0-9a-z]*\.com\b, which would also allow us to eliminate the numerous "howto" entries in the blacklist with and without the beginning 'e'. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    dormgrow.com

    Diffs: Cannabis cultivation, Cannabis cultivation, Grow light, Grow light, Growroom

    Jojalozzo 04:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued promotion;
    Sevakh (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)
    71.95.144.131 (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)
    71.95.146.171 (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)
    97.93.109.30 (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)
    plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    everdo.it

    Diffs:

    and likely more in the article Getting Things Done. mabdul 19:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And onther diff. mabdul 01:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OneMln ltd
    Google Analytics ID: UA-36262174 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)
    Article Spam
    Accounts
    Onemln (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)
    84.75.144.97 (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)
    213.92.164.163 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    109.173.216.229 (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)
    Continued promotion,  Done--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    mediafetcher.com

    mediafetcher.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

    --87.78.47.137 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So... it's a fake entertainment news web site (says so right at the bottom of the article sourced in that diff), but I don't see any evidence of abuse that would warrant a blacklisting. I'd expect The Onion to be more heavily cited for hoaxes (and it has fooled legitimate news agencies in the past), but we don't blacklist it either.
    Therefore, this request is no Declined for now unless other stronger evidence comes up. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [6], [7], [8], [9]. The blacklist already contains an entry for mediafetcher: 
    \bmediafetcher\.com\b
    This edit shouldn't have gone through. It may have to do with edits to the blacklist's mediafetcher entry here and here, but I'm not familar with the code so I couldn't say for sure. At any rate, mediafetcher is already on the blacklist, the entry just needs to be formatted/repaired by someone in the know. --87.78.47.137 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit went through because the broken formatting in the edit caused the link to not actually display on the page. Anomie⚔ 11:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok. That makes sense then. Thanks, --87.78.22.184 (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out that it's already blacklisted. Because you referenced a recent diff, it didn't occur to me to check that it was blacklisted. Anomie is correct, that edit went through because the reference was mis-formatted so the URL never displayed. If you copy and paste the URL into Wikipedia:Sandbox you'll see that the blacklist does get triggered by it.
    There's no log entry for mediafetcher.com, so it's hard to tell when it was added to the blacklist, so it's likely that those other examples occurred before the blacklisting. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    December 2008. Anomie⚔ 18:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you have a quick way to find that? At the time I replied, I couldn't spend the time to search the history. I always have to do a manual bisection search. Go back 6 years from present, if I don't see it, bisect the lookback to 3 years and look again, if it IS there, bisect the interval to 1.5 years and look again (this time 4.5 years back), and so on, narrowing down until I find it. It is a tedious process. If you have a tool that lets me quickly find a diff, please let me know. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?project=wikipedia&article=MediaWiki%3ASpam-blacklist&needle=mediafetcher&lang=en&limit=5000&offjahr=2013&offmon=1&offtag=4&offhour=23&offmin=55&searchmethod=int&order=desc&force_wikitags=on&user_lang=en&ignorefirst=0&binary_search_inverse=false is what I would use. Werieth (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. That works exactly the same way I do it manually. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually have a script I run on my computer, but it does the same as that. But on normal pages (unless the ramselehof.de tool is smarter than mine) you have to watch out that it will sometimes find a vandalism or revert instead of the real addition or removal of the searched-for content. Anomie⚔ 02:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The ramselehof.de tool gives you the option to search from the oldest or newest first, which should solve that problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The Korean Monarchy

    The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
    I've had a master and 10 socks add links to these two sites to between one and two dozen Korean monarchy related articles in the last two days (see the history on Joseon as an example). The site appears to be either a political party or an organization designed to revive the (long defunct) Korean monarchy. It's got a large number of ads, several donation links, and has no conceivable value as a link for Wikipedia. Rather than play whack-a-mole or protect a large number of pages (see Jyongchul's contribution list for the breadth of articles targeted), the blacklist seems like the most effective option. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    • respectfully OPPOSE; the subject of the korean monarchy (& any considerations of its revival) are quite obviously LEGITIMATE TOPICS. the problem you have stated involves ONE USER (somehow?) mis-applying links. you need to fix the problem with the user.
    WORSE YET; your comment seems to imply that you cannot read korean(?) & therefore have only a limited ability to understand the content of the sites which you are seeking to blacklist.
    "Rather than play whack-a-mole or protect a large number of pages" -- instead of this, you want to "nuke it"? (& overuse of "protection" is not a good thing either, for the record)
    in allowing a website blacklist AT ALL, it is understood that it must be used SPARINGLY, & only when absolutely necessary; & with all due respect, your problem comes nowhere near the threshold to justify such a ban.
    if this is "all it takes" to get a ban, we're going to end up blacklisting half the internet, & for prerty dubious reasons.
    Lx 121 (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that the website is partially in English (enough that I can tell it will never have any value on Wikipedia), is not about the monarchy but rather about an a private organization called the "Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification party" seeking to restore the monarchy, is a self-published website (that looks like little more than a blog), is not written by experts, fails several different parts of WP:ELNO, has no value per WP:ELYES, is being used to drive traffic to Wikipedia articles (the blocked editor bragged about the "creation" of a WP article, an AfC they created that has been repeatedly declined), and is being spammed to a very large number of articles. If I could solve this by blocking the editor, I would, but they keep using webhosts to produce more socks (we're up to 15 and counting). If I could solve it by protecting articles I would, but the person is adding it to a very large number of different articles, some of which have no obvious connection to the Korean monarchy (like Korean Cuisine), so I'd have to watchlist and potentially protect every single article related to Korea. So, no, there is no other solution, this site has no encyclopedic value, and is being spammed. It meets all of the criteria, and thus needs to be blacklisted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Except that the website is partially in English (enough that I can tell it will never have any value on Wikipedia)"" -- that seems like an awfully sweeping judgement, based on a limited understanding of the site.
    with respect YOUR PROBLEM IS WITH ONE USER, not with the site he's posting links to. you need to go & solve your problem with this user, this is the wrong place to try & "settle things". i am sorry that you are having problems with this editor, but you are letting that override ojbectivity & good judgement in your requested action here.
    & we are not discussing whether the k.r.a.f.r.p. merits an article on wikipedia; you are requesting a BAN on linking to it from wikipedia , in ANY way, for ANY reason.
    wp is still NOT CENSORED, & you are proposing to ban ALL web-links to a political party's website; that's asking for an awful lot. if you seriously want to pursue this course, you will need to provide a MUCH better rationale for the ban.
    you might also need to start a community-wide discussion about the appropriate use of the "spam-filter" for blacklisting websites & organizations.
    Lx 121 (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    also, with respect you are playing AWFULLY FAST & LOOSE with the definition of "self-published"; particularly when it comes to the question of political movements. you want to permanently block a party's website because it is "self-published", & you have a "problematic editor" who is persistently linking to it?
    where exactly do we set the standard on that? what other political parties' websites can we permanently blacklist to prevent them being linked to on wikipedia?
    do you not understand that you are trying to solve a VERY small problem, by creating a VERY much larger one?
    Lx 121 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a very small problem--it's spam happening at a rate faster than we can keep up with. There is no way to deal with that user--they're using anonymous webhosts to continually create new WP accounts; there is no technical means to prevent them from doing so. If the political party ever becomes notable enough for their own Wikipedia article, we can whitelist it for just that one article. Can you please provide any other case in which that site would ever be used on a Wikiperdia article? And we don't need to start a wikipedia wide discussion, because this is exactly what the spam blacklist is used for and has been used for for a long time. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    again, with respect, 2 key points here:
    1) your issue is with ONE USER who you consider to be a problem because they are "spamming links" to these 2 (& only these 2?) sites; there are plenty of "technical means" to deal with such a problem. listing all the option here would be beyond the scope of this discussion, but the project has had plently of experience in dealing with problematic users & there are no end of tools available.
    2)WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THIS POLITICAL PARTY MERITS AN ARTICLE; you want to BAN any access-links to their website from wikipedia AT ALL, EVER. & if we ever decide that the party merits an article, you would be willing to "allow" A single link, from that article, back to the party website(!?).
    with respect, if you think that this is a reasonable aproach to the user-problem you are dealing with, then you have completely lost perspective & you should perhaps consider either taking a wiki-break, or at least passing the problem over to a different administrator.
    i really think i've addressed all the key points you have raised & we are in danger of going in circles over this, so unless/until some new factors are brought into the discussion, i shall in future respond by referring to my previous comments.
    as always, respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not count one 'user', I count 10 'users' (which may, and likely are, just one person). There may be merit in linking the site, but using sock/meatpuppetry to get your site linked on Wikipedia, and avoiding the discussion is not the way forward. If those edits include putting your links on top on a page which is, obviously, not having as a main topic the Korean Royalty, or in a 'See also' section then I do not think that this is in good faith anymore.

    I would suggest, that either the editor returns to their main account, abandoning the others ánd the sockpuppetry, and stays on the discussion pages for this link, or we blacklist this and stop it. Performing whack-a-mole with a sockfarm is not the way forward, and, clearly, other administrative measures (protecting pages - that is a whole range of them, or blocking the editor - who will only create more sockpuppets) do not work (seen that the editor is continuing after this report and earlier accounts were blocked). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 10:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the possible creation of a page on the subject, if that happens, then that would merit a link on that page, and that can then be discussed for whitelisting. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 10:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There were 5 more socks after that. The person is blocked indefinitely on their main account as well, because the intentional creation of drawer full of socks means one is not welcome to edit here under any account. Of course, they could request an unblock on the main account; to be granted, they'd have to convince us they were here to do something constructive. Lx, you haven't 1) given a single legitimate use for this website ever on Wikipedia, and 2) haven't described even a single way to deal with the problem besides blacklisting. No other technical means will work. If you know of some magical way to stop the problem with the user, please tell us here and we shall pursue it. But I've been here a long time, and I don't know one that won't cause more harm than the blacklist will. Think about it this way: what is better, to prevent all anonymous users from editing any page related to Korean royalty (and other Korean subjects) indefinitely (i.e., using semi-protection), or stopping this one site which blatantly fails our policies? I think the latter is a much fairer approach. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Other accounts from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jyongchul;
    PinRise (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)
    Holensto (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)
    DeiceNice (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)
    Jellypo (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)
    Jihadiaen (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)
    Summer54 (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)
    KoreanRoyal (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)
    JoyY6Not (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)
    192.184.1.95 (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)
    192.184.1.70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    192.184.1.74 (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)
    Rubrise (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)
    TheKoreanMonarchy (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)
    SpotDays (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)
    Cross project spamming
    ko:Special:Contributions/SpotDays
    ko:Special:Contributions/Jyongchul
    ja:Special:Contributions/TheKoreanMonarchy
    ko:Special:Contributions/TheKoreanMonarchy
    It is no longer the content or merit of these links that matters when such egregious abuse reaches this stage. Mass-Spamming, sockpupetry, block evasion and a host of others violations of established Wikipedia policies done in bad faith makes any rationale for placing these links irrelevant. If either of these become the official subject of an article, whitelisting can be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as appropriate (in an appropriate context). plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    NO, with respect, you are trying to solve a problem with (what you have claimed to be) ONE person (if, in actual fact, more than one person is involved, it would change the circumstances of your case; although that's not truly germane here).
    the spam-filter is a VERY blunt too, & it is meant to be used SPARINGLY, & only in cases where it is absolutely necessary. THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE SUBJECT MERITS AN ARTICLE. This is a question of whether there is something so fundamentally BAD about the site being linked to, that it would justify PERMANENTLY BANNING ALL LINKS to it, from wikipesdia.
    ALL LINKS; not just in the article space. talk pages, user pages, discussions, working spaces...
    the sites you are talking about are not obvious "spam", in the sense that they are not simply commercial advertising, or "content farms" (slippery concept, that that is), with advertising plastered on top of minimal useful content.
    the sites in question are an expression of political opinion, regarding the nation of korea; ranted the position expressed may be rather esoteric, but it's still legitimate free-speech political opinion. & it doesn't seem to constitute any egregious examples of "hate speech", incitement to violence, or any other notably illegal activity.
    WORSE; you have conceded that you are, in fact, incapable of reading most of the material on the site, as it is written primarily in korean, rather than, english. with respect, this makes you FAR less qualified to judge the material on its merits...
    i'm not claiming linguistic expertise either, by when i look at the same site, i see a significant quantity of material about parts of the history of the korean monarchy.
    it might or might not merit an article on here; it might or might not meet your stringent standards of quality for an article reference, however it DOES meet the minimum standard for inclusion in free-discussions of relevant topics.
    & with all due respect, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY SUSPECTED SOCKPUPPETS YOU LIST HERE. this is the wrong place for that; you can block then as they turn up, you can block IP's, you can effect various protective efforts at the various effected pages.
    the sites themselves are not "damaging"; they are not malware, nor are they spam. if we use the "spam blacklist" to ban sites merely because they are "inconvenient", then we are violating the very basic principle of wp:not censored. it becomes a convenient form of backdoor censorship, & one that is carried out quasi-"invisibly". most editors will never notice the blocks, until/unless they stumble into the "blacklist" by accident. when they do, most will be too busy/too intimidated/too uninformed/too disinterested/too lazy/too etc. to make the effort to come here & "fill out a form" & go through the tedious (& time-consuming) process to request an unblock.
    when this blacklist filter was implemented, it was done so as a tool to deal with "extreme cases", & links to sites that were obviously problematic. it WAS NOT created to allow the wholesale ban of anything & everything. the community DID NOT "sign off" on that kind of sweeping restriction, & if that is how the filter is going to be used, then the community is going to have to re-open a general discussion on the appropriateness of this action.
    Lx 121 (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lx 121, sockpuppets are cheap, do you really think that the diminishing and overworked admin corps will ad infinitum and ad nauseam continue to go find the sockpuppets, and block them. Or you think it is a better idea that we protect 10+ pages to prevent all edits to those pages (which will disrupt all other additions, including yours - sockpuppets and edits are cheap). If you have a problem, go talk to the sockpuppet yourself, and get him to discuss. And if that one editor who thinks that Wikipedia's model of discussion can be circumvented by sockpuppetry and link-pushing, then that person has obviously an agenda, obviously promoting his POV, and hence, obviously that is a 'spam'-like problem (spamming is just a form of ignoring our WP:NPOV-policy, so the spam-blacklist is just a tool to 'enforce' WP:NPOV, just like page protection and blocking editors). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 08:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to note, that one of the last sockpuppets:
    clearly states they are here to push their own site, and is including threats. The editor is obviously aware of this discussion (seen the posts to all editors involved in this particular thread). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 13:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. Enough is enough. Lx 121's arguments fail to address the reason for this blacklist: as a tool for preventing abuse. The fact that abuse has happened in an egregious manner, and continues to happen in spite of blocking sockpuppets, is ample reason to list. If a trusted, high-volume editor deems either of the sites worthy of de-listing, we will consider the request, but for now, anyone wanting to link these sites may make requests for specific URLs at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Beetstra and Amatulić are quite correct. It would be unreasonable to lock up that many pages (10+). This would only prevent thousands of good faith users from contributing from the encyclopedia. This spammer has created 18+ sock accounts for the sole and primary purpose of promoting his own link. It is unreasonable to suggest that we "block them as they turn up", when established Wikipedia policies prohibit sockpuppetry. Even even after these links were blocked, another sock account was created and the promotion resumed[10], including attempts to circumvent the blacklist with redirects[11], creating articles and placing threats on multiple users talkpages;
    "I was angry cause you were challenging me....Unblock my website. It is pretty legitimate website that you shouldn't tinker with, or you can come to South Korea to deal with me.' --Lee, Jyong Chul, Founder and CEO
    Arguing "censorship" as a method to get this site de-listed, when it was added as a result of abuse, is vexatious. There has been significant disruption in this case and major breaches of policy by this user. This is not a controversial action and is an appropriate use of a block. Therefore, this is closed. --Hu12 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    diminishedvalueofgeorgia.com

    Domains
    User
    I cleaned up the spam reference some time ago, then I notice through my watch list that same article keeps getting added in. From looking in user page warnings, it looks like the article he's been adding are spam like over long periods of time. It looks like a scraping attempt from other sources in order to be able to add diminishedvalueofgeorgia.com website. diff 1 diff 2 as some examples. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems Rl10452 is engaged in discussion and no further linking is occuring (at this time). If the user continues, we can consider blocking, however blacklisting right now may be premature. Not done--Hu12 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given it a revertlist status, which should address issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    propertytradingcenter.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 12:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    portalhunt.com

    Domain
    Known users

    portalhunt.com appears to be a content farm working to insert WP:REFSPAM into miscellaneous articles. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done as the Spammer(s) blocked--Hu12 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    mbabug.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 05:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    customa.com

    Letsconspire appears to be SPA. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    optimove.com

    User has a history of adding dubious links Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuation of Korean Monarchy

    koreanroyals.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 This is just a different site for the same Korean monarchy resurrection site we blocked a few days ago. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    seemycells.co.uk

    seemycells.co.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 here; here, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    livebloodtest.com

    livebloodtest.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 this edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    Proposed removals

    Movie Review Intelligence

    This domain was blacklisted in 2010 because people involved with the website sought to solicit it across film articles on Wikipedia. Recently, I was researching about film review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, both of which are well-referenced). I saw that Movie Review Intelligence has gained prominence as seen here, and I think we should reconsider its blacklisting. (I started a discussion about this website and Movie Review Query Engine here.) I was fine with the blacklisting at the time, but I think it has built credibility since then. The aforementioned link indicates it as a reliable source to go with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and we should allow it to be referenced in film articles. Whether or not there is a consensus to use it in a widespread matter is yet to be determined, but I think this de-listing is a necessary first step. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    LMGTFY

    lmgtfy.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

    LMTGFY ("Let me Google that for you"; http://lmgtfy(dot)com) is a handy website used to assist people too lazy to use Google, and is also a useful tool to shorten Google searches. Compare:

    I don't see how LMGTFY can be used maliciously in any way - it is not a hosting site (i.e. cannot be used for spam), and it is not a URL redirector/shortener (i.e. cannot be used for spam). Is there any reason why the website is blacklisted? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It is possible to use it as a workaround to get (only) the result you want (hence, only the spam-result), moreover, google.com/search?q=copyright+law+in+Australia (link) does it as well, as well as {{google|copyright law in Australia}} (copyright law in Australia). There is no need to use lmgtfy anyway (there is hardly any use for google searches in mainspace, they are not suitable as a reference, and should not be used as an external link since the result is not 'stable' in any form). Finally, this is blacklisted on meta, not here. I hope this explains and helps. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 08:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking more of using them on talk pages, to explain things, and not actually use the links within mainspace. But yes, I understand your points. Though, given that the site itself does no harm, and the purpose of the spam blacklist is to prevent malicious or disruptive use of links, is the block necessary? I'll ask around on meta. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see the use of it when there are better and more clear links to google results. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 06:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Richardson - OverVoice

    overvoice.co.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

    Anthony Richardson is a leading voice over artist with international credits who, nearly 6 years ago was taken-in by all the "how to promote your website" gurus and accidentally became blacklisted. Is it possible to remove this please? I can assure you that my voiceover business is legitimate and I have many credits including a Hollywood movie, animation films, numerous TV and radio commercials and I regularly read childrens' stories for Stephen Fry's charity, Listening Books. Ultimately I would really like to be listed in Wikipedia's "Voice acting" section to include my IMDb credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antrichardson (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately I must decline your request because we don't remove an entry from the blacklist at the request of a site owner or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor deems your site worthy of referencing in a Wikipedia article, then we would consider a de-listing request. Also, no website becomes "accidentally" blacklisted on Wikipedia. The inappropriate promotion was deliberate, and so was the blacklisting.
    The article we have on Anthony Richardson appears to be about someone else. If at some point in the future someone writes an article about you, we would white-list a link to a specific page on your web site for use in that article. If you're considering writing such an article yourself (autobiographies are strongly discouraged here but not prohibited), be aware that it must comply with Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view lest the article be quickly deleted.
    Looking at your site, I can't see how any link to it would be appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:External links for further guidance. Therefore, this request is no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    virtualmedicalcentre

    virtualmedicalcentre.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've asked for this before, but I worded it wrong: I'm requesting the whole domain to be removed from the blacklist, not just one article. The articles from this site have a lot of good information; the site itself is verified by Health On the Net Foundation (verification here) and it's not on Quackwatch. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been blacklisted only six months, and for good reason, described at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Aug 1#Virtual_Medical Centre Adsense link-farming Spam. I see this request as occurring too soon after the blacklisting to consider.
    The fact that it may "have a lot of good information" is really irrelevant. There are other "good information" sites on the blacklist. They are there for the same reason virtualmedicalcentre.com is there: The site was abusing Wikipedia.
    The verification you cite about HONcode is also irrelevant. Wikipedia has its own rules and is not bound by the opinions of other websites. The fact remains that their code of conduct has been less than stellar with respect to Wikipedia; therefore, they are blacklisted.
    Finally Quackwatch does not claim to be a comprehensive information resource of every quack site in existence. Whether they are or aren't on Quackwatch has no bearing on the blacklist. All that matters is past history on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Agree with Amatulić. Wether or not the site is verified, Quackwatch or otherwise is irrelevant and becomes quite secondary when the abuse gets to this stage. Mass multi-article Adsense spamming, mass multi-related domain spamming and excessive sock-puppetry are not signs of good faith nor is replacing existing links with virtualmedicalcentre's link. Because of the large scale, long term egregious nature of the abuse, full domain removal is no Declined. Your request was replied to last week and it appears you worded it explicitly; "Specifically, virtualmedicalcentre.com/anatomy/sweating-perspiration/75 .". Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    forum.bodybuilding.com

    hi

    2 things

    1. in adding references to the article jelq, when i attempted to include this site:

    http ://forum.body building.com/showthread.php?t=259757&page=1

    your spam filter blocked me (& btw it would be nice if it the "warning/blocked-edit page" was made a bit more user-friendly; is there some reason why you feel that there should not be any buttons on it to continue editing?)

    now, the site is (as far as i can tell) a perfectly legitimate body-building forum (as per the title); so i would like to know please WHY IS IT BLACKLISTED?

    i would also like the blacklisting to be removed, unless some adequate justification can be provided for it.

    2. last august (aug 2012), i had another problem with your blacklist, which i commented upon, on this page.

    the comment seems to have "disappeared".

    yes, i know that you archive monthly, however MY COMMENT-PROBLEM IS NOT IN YOUR ARCHIVE

    i have a problem with user-complaints being "disappeared" & would very much like an explanation & accounting of what has happened to my comment?

    i thank you for your time & attention in these 2 matters.

    Lx 121 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about the second, but forums are never allowed as sources per WP:RS, and almost never allowed as links per WP:EL. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    hello again (from our discussion above); "never" is such a pretty word. & i can think of MANY legitimate reasons to provide link to a forum about a given topic. if we're going to make a "total ban" on forum links, that's another community-wide discussion i'd like to be a part of. with respect, Lx 121 (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:EL, our guideline on external links. WP:ELNO (the list of sites that are generally not allowed to be linked to) point #10 says, "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." So this is already the community consensus. As I suspected above, you don't actually seem to understand our rules, and are making assertions based upon your own preferences, not based on current site-wide consensus. Of course, if you wish, you may start a wider discussion (start at WT:EL) to amend the guideline to allow forums...but that would be up to you. Until that point, it shouldn't be linked on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    so, what you are saying is that, according to your personal interpretation of the rules, it would, for example, not be permitted to cite a quotation from a politician's twitter feed, or their party's facebook page!?
    i have to say, i do not think that interpretation truly reflects community opinion or consensus; perhaps it is time that the written rules were revisited, revised, discussed, & properly voted on. Lx 121 (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lx 121, forum.bodybuilding.com is globally blacklisted. That generally happens (much like a local blacklisting) after significant abuse of a site. That is irrespective of whether the site is or can be a good source (which do get blacklisted as well if their owners decide that reputation is less important to them than Search Engine Optimisation!) - if the abuse is not controllable by blocking the editors or protecting pages, this is the last resort. Moreover, forums in general make bad sources and bad external links (yes, Qwyrxian is right there, and this is not the place to discuss those rules) - twitter feeds or facebook pages make at best primary sources, and that is not always what we want to base this encyclopedia on, so if a forum gets abused, the threshold to blacklisting is even lower than for a proper site. This page, as the meta counterpart of it, are to control spamming. If one page (or even 20) on that are suitable as a specific reference on a specific place, then please request that specific link to be whitelisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 07:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    hello, & thank-you for the reply;
    i do not entirely agree with your position, as presented above, but setting aside most of the matter, there are at least 2 simple questions that come immediately to mind:
    1. IF a site-link is to be banned from the article-space, as a "last resort" (a claim which i think is being somewhat abused in a number of cases), then WHY is the ban not limited" to articles? there is no reason why a blacklist should apply to talkpages, user-space, etc. & i'm not aware of any technical restrictions that would prevent this.
    2. with all due respect, i am still waiting to hear why my previous "problem" (from last august) appears to have "disappeared" from the archives. it is not appropriate to remove/delete such material, & i'd like it restored "for the record".
    Lx 121 (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding 1 - who says that spam is only an article space problem, it is just as much as a userspace problem, and even a user-talk-page-problem (not forgetting the category or template problem). If you think that the spam blacklist should operate in a different way (which is something that I agree with), then I suggest that you get that changed in the mediawiki software - I've been involved in those discussions or am following the discussions, and I tell you, we are already waiting for a long, long time.
    Regarding 2 - I suggest that we discuss that in a thread down in an appropriate section (there is a section for troubleshooting and similar), not here. Could you please show me the diff that creates a discussion by you that you think has disappeared? Maybe it got accidentally removed, overwritten or something, or it did get archived.
    Nonetheless, this is blacklisted on Meta (i.e., globally blacklisted), I suggest that you ask for whitelisting of the specific links. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 08:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Silk Road (marketplace)

    silkroadvb5piz3r.onion: 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

    First of all let me say to anybody not familiar with .onion links, this certainly does look like a spam link but it is not. The above link is the url for an online, anonymous marketplac which is only accessible with a special browser called the Tor Browser. The anonymity of the marketplace makes it a useful place to buy and sell drugs, but that isn't the only use for it. Please take a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace) . Here is the blacklist log listing blocking this link:

    \bsilkroad.*\.onion\b # Phishing site with changing url (i.e. silkroadfqmteec4.onion)

    The marketplace is not a phishing site. Since it's difficult to tell when the link is incorrect, malicious editors were replacing the correct link with phishing links so that they could withdraw the money deposited into their marketplace accounts. I would suggest some kind of page protection instead of blocking everything, including the legitimate link.

    This link is useful because there are legal purposes for the Silk Road marketplace. As in the case of ThePirateBay, whose article links to the site, it is up to users to make the best of use of the information Wikipedia provides. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

    A discussion took place on the administrator's noticeboard preceding this link's blacklisting, but it explicitly suggested ignoring the rules to blacklist the link. Unfortunately I can't find it on the noticeboard anymore. The primary argument used was that Wikipedia has no interest promoting illegal activity. However I would point out two things: 1. Wikipedia also doesn't have an interest in condemning it. 2. The link is Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL and not Wikipedia:ELNEVER 146.115.137.225 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    Troubleshooting and problems

    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


    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=532608099"