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 Aestu (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 22 January 2013 (→‎avoiceformen.com). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 534364399 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]
    I don't see any valid reason for blacklisting here, thanks Not done--Hu12 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    oDesk

    Multiple users spam link their user pages with links to this site. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 23:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    cloudways.com

    couldways.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

    39.48.89.149 (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)
    [1]

    39.48.58.250 (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)
    [2] [[3] [4] [5]

    202.143.126.157 (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] [7]

    210.2.135.41 (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] [9] [10] [11] [12]

    There has been a steady campaign since summer 2012 to add this site to various articles, often those of competitors, most recently today. Jojalozzo 21:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    heightincreasinginsoles.net

    Previous incidents
    Sites spammed
    Spammers

    86.142.76.14 felt the need to post this. MER-C 13:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    Proposed removals

    LookChem

    This site provides accurate information about chemicals, and it is also a buyer site. The basic information added to wikipedia and cited as it would be excellent additions. Please consider my opinion that de-listing it would be a very godo contribution to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.112.17 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    [13]no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    "Movie Review Intelligence is a review aggregator website which collates and analyses movie reviews.". Fails Wikipedias inclusion requirements of our External Links policy no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 04:06, 21 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]


    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 marketplace 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 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 victims' 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]

    no Declined. However the abuse is characterized, it correctly led to a blacklisting. Furthermore, the .onion top level domain is not an official TLD, and requires special software to access those sites. WP:ELNO specifically says links requiring special software to view are to be avoided. I see no reason to de-list this domain. In fact, I would advocate all of *.onion be blacklisted, for the same reason that all of *.co.cc is blacklisted on meta. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response Amatulić. As I understand the need for special software is recommended against but it's not a sufficient condition for blacklisting, and nor is being a non-ICANN TLD. As I said before, the link I posted above is not a phishing link, and frankly User:XLinkBot would be a better fix for the abuse than the Blacklist. I'm not familiar with the *.co.cc blacklist reasoning and couldn't find anything on the subject; could you post a link? 128.84.126.85 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear anonymous. IF there is ONE single, fixed, clear .onion account for silkroad (e.g. silkroad.onion) then we could consider something. As this does not seem to be the case (it seems to be changing .. and it has the additional 'code' vb5piz3r added to it, which .. makes me think that this is not the official .onion site. Should this not simply be 'silkroad.onion'?).
    For me, .onion should be blanket blacklisted (the abuse and the possibility for abuse is, obviously, too broad), and then for specific pages one specific link should be whitelisted. Note that actually providing a link is a mere service, there is no necessity for it in any way. I think that this might be a case for whitelisting this specific link, here no Declined. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 08:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Beetstra (public), thanks a lot for your response. The link I posted is the ONE link that works. It's the only link that works, and it doesn't change. The changing of the link on the Silk Road article was due to malicious users putting up phishing sites to replace the correct link. The reason it has the gibberish after the 'silkroad' part is related to the security controls inherent to Tor's anonymizing technology. It's not possible to make a link which is just 'silkroad.onion'. Take a look at .onion for more info about this. I really like your idea of blanket blacklist and specific link whitelisting. Unfortunately, the gibberish in all .onion links makes users susceptible to phishing sites no matter where they on the web they look for a link. That's why I think it's important that Wikipedia puts up and maintains the correct link, it gives correct information that users can trust when no other site can really do this. 128.84.126.26 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes two of us admins in favor of blacklisting all of *.onion. First of all, as I said earlier, WP:ELNO suggests that those links have no business being on Wikipedia due to the need for special software. Second, the entire *.onion TLD is a notorious source of illegal material, phishing, and what not. The benefits to blacklisting outweigh the benefits to keeping it unlisted.
    At the moment, only silkroad*.onion is listed. If you want to white-list a specific case of that is guaranteed to work, then  Defer to Whitelist for such requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    finance.mapsofworld.com

    This is in follow up of a request at the Help Desk by Toshio Yamaguchi.[14] Back in October 2007, two IPs and two registered editors were spamming mapsofworld.com into Wikipedia and that generated Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/mapsofworld.com. That resulted in User:Beetstra adding mapsofworld.com to the black list 09:34, 16 October 2007.[15]. As noted in 2008 here, "somebody unrelated to mapsofworld.com was persistently adding links for that and other sites to many articles." Given that occured over five years ago, I think the reasons for the black list no longer exist. Please consider removing http://finance.mapsofworld.com/ from the black list. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    finance.mapsofworld.com isn't specifically blacklisted. All of mapsofworld.com is listed, as well as many other mapsof*.com sites. We could possibly add the subdomain finance.mapsofworld.com to the whitelist, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    avoiceformen.com

    Men's rights are a topic of increasing interest, and Avoiceformen is the leading site on the topic. The blacklist entry is completely bad as it:

    1. uses weasel words ("sneaky")
    2. alleges that citation is a form of vandalism
    3. alleges the site should be blacklisted because of vandalism causing links to the site to in fact link elsewhere
    4. unsupported claims "I cannot see that this website could even be considered a reliable source"

    It would be quite absurd to not cite a leading site on any given topic, and as avoiceformen is the leading site on its particular topic, it is only logical to de-blacklist it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestu (talk • contribs)


    I recommend no action here. The website could only be considered a "leading site" if it was run by a group of notable people or scholarly topic experts, but it is not. The closest it comes to naming its leaders is the mission statement which offers email contacts for "Paul" and "John". That is not the signature of a reliable website. There is no indication that this website is in any way important. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2012#avoiceformen.com says it all .. link hijacking etc. no Declined. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 13:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    People are "notable" because they are noted. Clearly, they've met that criteria, by virtue of sheer size, traffic, and recognition. "Scholarly topic experts" means nothing because there is no associated realm of scholarship. Male rights is, after all, an emerging field. A source need not be scholarly if it is relevant and does not claim to be scholarly.

    Very few websites offer direct contact information or the proper names of administrators, including Wikipedia itself. Trying to use the very common internet practice of first-name aliases to preseve personal anonymity as a smear against the site betrays the lack of any real case against it.

    How is the link hijacking case relevant? That was over a year ago, do we have evidence that the site in question was responsible, or that is a reason to keep the site on the blacklist? To say simply "link hijacking etc" seems to indicate there is no real case against the site itself. Aestu (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You should really have a look at WP:V, WP:RS .. we do demand the highest quality sources.
    The owners of Wikipedia are known by full name .. not by alias.
    Well, it was clearly used to advocate / promote the site (link hijacking in order to traffic people to this site in stead of to the site that one thinks to go to - not just 'honest' additions to pages where it should be), and that is exactly relevant here, that is exactly one of the things that the spam blacklist has to prevent. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The accusations still haven't been proven. Waving around a random link and accusing another poster of acting on the basis of ignorance does not change that and only underscores the lack of a case against the site. Do we know that those responsible for the edit and the reasons for it are applicable to any such information from the site? No? Then the entire argument is based on an unproven premise.

    The individual who nominated the site for the blacklist is an aggressive editor of ideologically opposed material. Therefore, it seems most likely that the accusation was ideological in nature. No other individuals other than this one user have found fault with the site. Aestu (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The link hijacking has been proven, so I don't know what you are talking about there. And you say 'a source need not be scholarly if it is relevant and does not claim to be scholarly' - well, it needs to be scholarly, and if it already claims not to be scholarly, then it is certainly not the highest quality source, and hence not worth mentioning on Wikipedia. And no, I did not argue that those responsible for the edits were affiliated (and actually, whether they are affiliated or not does not matter at all; and people not affiliated with a site can still promote or advocate it), what I do know is that the editors responsible for those edits were also responsible for the disruption caused by the edits, and that is what the spam blacklist is preventing now. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 14:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, a source does not need to be scholarly - WP:V itself says so, so I am curious why you are arguing against site policy? Blogs and non-academic sources qualify, "particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications". AVoiceForMen has appeared on the NYT and CBS so clearly that criteria has been met.

    The evidence suggests that the questionable edits were made not by affiliates of that site but by ideologically opposed opponents looking to smear it.

    Let's boil this down. Beetstra, what criteria for deblacklisting do you feel is not being met? And why are you claiming the policy says something other than it clearly does? Aestu (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined As Beetstra noted, this site does not have the appearance of a reputable source. No amount of wikilawyering (i.e., attacking the blacklister as if you're hoping to get this "dismissed on procedural grounds") is going to convince me that this site meets WP:RS or is otherwise useful to the project. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No legal terminology or procedure was used. You are using the term "wikilawyering" as an insult without any proper justification, and trying to attack a contributor for properly employing the cited Wikipedia regulations.

    "No amount". In other words, you refuse to examine the issue objectively; it doesn't matter what the evidence is.

    The following would seem to apply:

    "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their fact and principle marshaling opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere."

    [[16]]

    "Does not have the appearance". Your argument is entirely semantic in nature. No proof, no argument; just the semantic ad hominem of "not reputable". Why? The site meets the criteria specified in WP:V and WP:RS - it has appeared in mainstream publications, is not self-cited, and makes no extraordinary claims - so if you feel otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

    Abuse of the insult "wikilawyer" to defend a lack of factual basis for a blacklist decision corroborates the appearance of bias. So we come back to the question: do you have a non-semantic basis to claim the site is not credible, when, in fact, it appears highly credible, having appeared in mainstream publications, and contains an abundance of diverse contributors?

    Aestu (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me make a counter point, the site has been forcefully inserted into Wikipedia against Wikipedia policy, as a result Wikipedian's where forced to blacklist the domain (something that isn't done casually). Now the burden of proof lays on you to prove that the site in question meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. That threshold has not been met with your statements. No proof has been given that your site is a avoiceformen is the leading site, clear proof has not been established that your site is in fact reliable, well sourced, and professionally written at all. All we have are some vague statements by the owner of the site. I have seen other domain owners attempt to sell snow to an Eskimo for one reason or another. (For the record Eskimo's never need to buy snow.) The burden lays with the person wishing to include the material after the fact that it has been proven to be abusive. Werieth (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, you're making this personal, which is bad form. You keep referring to Avoiceformen as "your site". It's not "my site". Please observe proper decorum and approach the issue in a non-personal manner.

    Second, the burden of proof has already been met. The site has been repeatedly cited by several mainstream publications. No good reason has been given by anyone why the site is good enough for CBS and the New York Times but not Wikipedia. Obviously, if it's good enough for CBS/NYT then it's good enough for Wikipedia unless a VERY good reason can be given why not.

    Third, you're throwing out a red herring by trying to associate a site with an anecdote about Eskimos and snow. It has nothing to do with the topic and suggests, again, efforts to blacklist the site in the absence of any objectively acceptable reason to do so. Aestu (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Duplicate entries

    The following entries are listed twice in the blacklist. One of the duplicates should be removed. 

    \b211manchesterfacts\.com\b
\b43jonesborofax\.com\b
\b50newyorkcityfacts\.com\b
\b51oxenfordfacts\.com\b
\b5berkeleyfacts\.com\b
\b77alexandriafacts\.com\b
\babsolutechinatours\.com\b
\ballsitesexcavations\.com\.au\b
\bbargainmailorder\.com\b
\bblacksonblondes\.com\b
\bboatville\.com\b
\bderbylimo\.com\b
\bfared\.com\b
\bfluoridealert\.org\b
\bfoxmotorcycle\.com\b
\bglobalizationautomation\.com\b
\bgramsrecipe\.com\b
\bhankville\.com\b
\binsidelouisville\.com\b
\bkompenz\.ru\b
\bnuibavi\.com\b
\bnu-tritionhealthfitness\.com\b
\brabbit-vibrators\.com\.au\b
\brufed\.com\b
\bsampleged\.com\b
\bscrewville\.com\b
\bthewhiteglovemover\.com\.au\b
\btijuanarxstore\.com\b
\bworldrugbyshop\.co\.uk\b
\byiser\.com\b

    —Psychonaut (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2013 (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


    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=534364399"