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 Hu12 (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 26 April 2008 (→‎Cafepress: added). 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 regex — 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 - 208339685 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|208339685#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|208339685#section_name}}
    →A user-gadget for handling additions to and removals from the spam-blacklist is available at User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-blacklist-Handler

    Proposed additions

    wargs.com

    As per this discussion on WP:ANI. This site was being used in approximately 84 articles on Wikipedia-en, though I have removed some of these links. Site appears to be useful to cite material but fails to meet requirements set out in WP:RS (self-published, publisher claims "first draft", etc. etc.). --Yamla (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --Yamla (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yamla, I disagree with blacklisting this many links added by regular editors without more consensus from the community and I am especially disagree with blacklisting them first before cleaning them up. This is going to disrupt probably 1000 pages. A perverse feature of our software filter is that when editors get the screen telling them they're editing an article with a blacklisted link, they lose whatever they were editing when they click on the "return to" link at the bottom.
    I'm also wary of blacklisting links that regular editors are routinely adding. Perhaps they're not a good choice, but I don't think the blacklist is a good tool for raising editorial quality; it's a blunt instrument for blocking persistent, bad faith abuse by outsiders, not well-meaning poor judgement by our honest contributors.
    Perhaps it would be better to add this to XLinkBot's revert list instead -- it's much less disruptive. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would absolutely not object to you removing wargs.com from the blacklist and adding it to XLinkBot. You clearly have a better handle on this sort of thing than I do. By the way, is there a way to remove links from bulk Wikipedia articles that is any faster than manual, one-at-a-time? I've yet to find a single wargs.com link that was actually appropriate, but the thought of removing them by hand makes me sad. Obviously any removal would require me to still check the validity. --Yamla (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen bots turned loose on similar problems a few months but it was messy, especially where the links were used in the article as opposed to the External links section. Perhaps someone has developed something -- if so, I'd love to know about it!
    If links are used in the article, it's of course preferable to find a substitute reference, but you can always leave a {{fact}} tag. Also, sometimes spammers will add a footnote to something obvious: "Canada is a large country in North America.[1]" I just delete those and move on. If the link is in the External links section, I just delete and move on, leaving an edit summary such as "deleted spam.com link per [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#spam.com]]"
    I'll go ahead and remove the domain from this list and add it to XLinkBot's list for now. Perhaps we can both work away at the links over the next few days. I'll also do an investigation to see how much of this was spam and how much was "innocent". If it was all spam, I'll look to see who added it and how many warnings they got; if they got enough warnings, we may want to add it back here (along with all the site-owners' other domains once the links are cleaned up.)
    Thanks again for your work on spam. Please feel welcome to join us at WikiProject Spam
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Defer to XLinkBot --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    horizonpress.com

    For logging purposes. See [1]

    Yikes -- we have almost 300 links to clean up ASAP! Normally we do that first, then blacklist to minimize disruption to editors. I recommend removing this from the blacklist for now, cleaning up, then adding it back.
    Also, if this might be a good reference in some cases, I suggest giving it to XLinkBot instead of totally blacklisting it. I suggest leaving note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine asking for advice.
    Finally, we've had some success writing to the senior management of scientific publishing houses explaining the situation and asking them to have their staffs stop. Our regular editors need access to good refs and the publishers don't need the embarrassment of blacklisting.
    In any event, we need to do something about all those now-blacklisted links. I'd help but I'm hitting the road now. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I think this listing may be a little premature given the number of articles affected. Maybe Guy would like to remove/rem out the listing for now? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a removal request from the editor below. I suggest removal, but the edits need cleaning. No need to link to a certain press if there is an ISBN available, except if that is the only link to that book available (and even then, we don't need to link). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the comments I've rem'd out the listing for now to allow clearing of articles. After that it can be activated & ISBN used, thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all your help. In future I will only use ISBN in any citations. Touchstone42 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am working hard correcting the references to the ISBN format. Any help appreciated! Touchstone42 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    boydabloc.blogspot.com

    Several different SPAs keep inserting this link into Nancy Boyda. It's just one person's advocacy blog, not officially associated with Ms. Boyda. I'm tired of reverting it.--Father Goose (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed,  Done & thanks for the work --Herby talk thyme 08:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: SPA is now using boydabloc.com. Need that boydablocked too.--Father Goose (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Monitored, putting it on XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    Cafepress

    With the exception of the link from the article cafepress.com, every single one of the 300-odd links to cafepress would seem, on the face of it, to be spam. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Don't list At best this blacklist proposal is controversial. Wikipedia has a Cafepress shop (www.cafepress.com/wikipedia). <-- (Take note if this evidence link get removed.) Among other things, JzG/Guy has tampered with clickable evidence in one or more WP:COI investigations on talk pages that may not be closed issues. I object to his judgment as to whether a delicate balance of editors' WP:COI judgments will be altered, by arbitrarily forcing busy people to bring up an empty browser, and cut-and-paste a delinked URL into it to examine the evidence.
    At worst, IMHO, it's a crusade by JzG/Guy. JzG/Guy has repeatedly removed links apparently not meeting the definition of primary-purpose spam. See below the copy of Kizor's link evaluation report and followup debate in which obvious exceptions were simply ignored by JzG/Guy, to meet the header requirement here that all links must be removed in order to qualify for the blacklist.
    Check JzG/Guy's contribs for recent (Apr 24) instances in which users objected to Cafepress link removal from talk pages.
    Worse, after there were clear and rational objections, JzG/Guy continued to use AWB to mass revert the objecting editors, violating Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use "Don't do anything controversial with it". After seeing editors' objections, he should have engage them individually on a level editing field. Takes too long to engage them individually with manual editing? That's a sign to accept compromise. Reducing 300-claimed links to about 10% on talk pages for valid primary purposes is good enough unless one is crusading. Milo 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    support blacklisting see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/cafepress.com, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/cafepress.com, and m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/cafepress.com βcommand 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason for this site on Wikipedia. Seems to be 134 results left. If any remaining links reside in articles could be purged, I'll add it.--Hu12 (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not encouraged to believe I'm communicating with the reasonable when I see dismissive absolute generalizations like No reason for this site on Wikipedia.
    The header above reads:
    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    What about Cafepress.com in article space? What about the Wikipedia Cafepress shop? What about official future fundraising use? And how about addressing the specific issue I raised which is evidence-tampering on talk pages?
    2. .... Have other methods of control been exhausted? ....
    Given the suddenness of this apparent crusade, I've seen no evidence of that.
    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).
    So why has JzG/Guy been removing Cafepress links from user talk pages? "discussion pages" implies that more than article space will be affected. Is that a fact? If so, blacklisting is too blunt a tool to be using.
    Oh, yes— do you plan to show Jimbo who's boss by altering his talk archive? Milo 06:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blacklisting will prevent editing/discussions on article/user talk pages (the hyperlink "http://" should be removed). Archives typicaly are not activly edited so there is little concern about the links that remain "archived". I will whitelist the root (www.cafepress.com/index.aspx) for theCafepress.com article.
    Cafepress.com links
    • Offers Affiliate Programs / affiliate earnings
    • Offers its Affiliates financial incentives to Link / increase page views
    Cafepress.com links fail
    Cafepress exists for the sole and primary purpose of promoting products, promoting online retail merchandise and promoting Affiliate services in apparent violation of anti-spam guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site or sell products.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    buddhabihar.com

    buddhabihar.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

    Recurring and fairly obvious spam from dynamic IPs, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct 2#spam.buddhabihar.com and WT:WPSPAM#spam.buddhabihar.com. MER-C 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]




    Picking up chicks and lobsters

    Domains soammed
    • Google Adsense: 3645316179451463
    • Google Adsense: 3645316179451463

    These IPs added several other dating sites but they appear to be unrelated.


    Related domains
    • adult ad referral code: ?ainfo=MTEyNDB8MzB8MjUx&atcc=3
    • Google Adsense: 3645316179451463
    • Google Adsense: 3645316179451463
    • Google Adsense: 3645316179451463
    • adult ad referral code: ?ainfo=MTEyNDB8Mnw0OTk=&atcc=4&skin=24


    Accounts


    Reference

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Sotheby's real estate spam on Wikipedia

    Cheesy:

    Spam domains


    Spam account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Additional related domains to evaluate
    Blacklist or turn these related links over to XLinkBot?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Greektionary.com and bouzoukidvd.com spam

    Spam domains
    • Google Adsense ID: 3392002598145138
    Account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NHL Quartley Editor spam

    Non-notable fan blog persistently spammed to support NHL Quartley Editor's unreliable, POV, potentially libelous edits to our Sean Avery‎ article.

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Financemanila.net

    financemanila.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com -- spammer links this to all Philippine company articles. --Howard the Duck 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have the spammers accounts or IPs adding the link? thanks--Hu12 (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Found several, they have been at it for some time;
    Adsense pub-8709646741579941
    121.97.150.250 (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)
    125.212.124.237 (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)
    203.167.66.57 (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)
    125.212.50.33 (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)
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More "Mesothelioma Entrepreneurship" spam

    au-answers.com is already blacklisted:

    Now another IP has spammed a link to a site that redirects to au-asnwers.com:

    Still another site is also redirect:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    Request unlisting of kmle.com

    I am the main admin of the site, and it is nonprofit site for medical terminology. The site is of quality and really referenced in medical textbooks. Anyways I realize why the site was blacklisted: one of the admins made way to many references to it in several articles. To tell the truth I had full knowledge of this, and I will prevent this from happening again, anyways of note all the references really did reference the site and all articles were modified to be more accurate which I required the admin to do. I would hope that wikipedia can give us a second chance. Thanks, and sorry for disrupting wikipedia. Digirave (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the original spam report:
    From reading the report, it looks like this went way beyond overenthusiasm to include making up multiple sockpuppet accounts to do this. Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine asking if anybody wants to use these links.
    I'll leave this request open a few days to see if we get any comments. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I completely understand wikipedia's stance. Anyways the overreferencing of our site which we even considered wrong, stopped long before the ban, but on our defense the articles accuracy were improved through editing and new articles were created which are still used, although the overreferencing was wrong. We knew it was wrong so we stopped, we did not have any warnings and stopped before any warnings were given, so I hope wikipedia could could unban the link and give the site address a second chance. Digirave (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • A second chance where, exactly? For which encyclopaedia articles does your site represent a reliable source? Guy (Help!) 21:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes we hope wikipedian's find it a reliable source. We license the complete American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, metasearch for MeSH, Stedman's, Merriam-Webster's, and several other medical dictionaries. For searching medical terminology we are recommended in the translated text of The Language of Medicine 7th edition by Davi-Ellen Chabner, translated by Park K.H., ISBN 897331389. Digirave (talk)

    Search aggregators are Links normally to be avoided. Perhaps the sources in which kmle searches may be reliable in their own right, however kmle is not. Obviously there are other Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Along with kmle extensive history, this is no Declined --Hu12 (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unlisting of commonpurpose

    I have no idea why this charity's name has been blacklisted. Does anyone else? 78.86.157.63 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the original report:
    This domain was spammed across multiple Wikipedias by an IP registered to the organization; this was despite a total of 7 requests to stop:
    Because of the cross-wiki spam, this domain was not blacklisted here, but rather on the global spam blacklist maintained on Meta-Wiki.
    Once blacklisted, we normally only de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use these links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and the links may well be removed.
    The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in the organization's links; they should feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unlisting of horizonpress.com

    See [2]

    1. The site has validity to the projects. The site is the website of a respected academic publisher. Most links are to academic books which are references/citations for content added to Wiki
    2. No links have been placed after warnings/blocks
    3. Other methods of control have not been exhausted
    4. I have replied respectfully to the Spam report

    I think the site was blocked because of several links (without content) that I added to wiki pages recently. I will ensure this does not happen again. In future I will only add content and, if appropriate, citations to the source books using ISBN rather than links. Your help here is greatly appreciated Touchstone42 (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unlisting of nacion.com

    This url is for Costa Rica's main newspaper, because of its good reputation and its daily circulation. Just go to www.nacion.com (La Nación) to confirm, really it must be someone's joke to have it as blacklisted as spam, for Costa Ricans this is the equivalent of blacklisting The New York Times or The Washington Post. This newspaper already appear as reference to several articles, and I myself have used a lot for Costa Rica's related articles in the past. Mariordo (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I absolutely agree with your assessment -- this one was pretty silly.
    We have two blacklists: this one, which covers only the English Wikipedia, and the one on Meta-Wiki which filters spam for all 700 or so Wikimedia projects. nacion.com is blacklisted on the meta list. I hate to give you the runaround, but can you please repeat your request at:
    I'll see that it's removed in the next day or two at the latest once you do this.
    In the meantime, I have a favor to ask of you. I was surprised to this paper has no article on the English Wikipedia; someday, can you write something up, even if it's just a stub article with one or two sentences? Also I see we have articles about several papers of this name; it may be good to start a disambiguation page ("dab") to sort them out.
    Thanks for all your work on Costa Rica articles here and on the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias -- I know en.wikipedia has really needed the deeper coverage that you've been giving this topic.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, on meta. Nakon 15:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for unlisting of keeper klan

    I moderate a Dungeon Keeper (a computer game by EA/Bullfrog) forum (which has been blacklisted), and have traditionally had links on Wikipedia on both Dungeon Keeper and Dungeon Keeper 2 articles. In the past 6 months or so these links have been routinely deleted or edited slightly (so that the URL is incorrect and doesn't link to the site). I know who is doing this, because I had the unfortunate task of banning some members on the forum I moderate - they created their own forum and replace our link with theirs. I have childishly resorted to doing that in response, but I can't keep it up and realise how petty it is.

    When adding the URL to the forum today, on the DK page, I was told it had been "blacklisted". Now, I don't know how one goes about blacklisting a site, but I'm sure the process was started by the aforementioned people. Who did it is rather unimportant, what is important is when the link will be unblacklisted. The forum is almost certainly the largest and most active DK community, and has a lot of useful resources and related projects, tournaments and exclusive interviews. I think it would be a shame if DK fans could not access this useful information. Our forum has prospered with the link to Wikipedia (and hopefully vice versa), and I hope this doesn't end because of sour grapes from a select minority of wiki users.

    I hope this can be resolved speedily, in the mean time I've been using a dot.tk URL - but the additional web adverts are not pleasant for visitors. BonnieDonny (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would recomend blacklisting this new URL also then. βcommand 2 18:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From following the link, I'm guessing it's related to the invisionfree.com block. The link itself appears to be to a community forum, which is an issue with WP:ELNO. Personally, I agree that blocking this additional domain is appropriate too if it continues to be added to circumvent the block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, this is the opposite effect to what I intended. I now understand that forums are not favoured by Wikipedia, but in this case it is detrimental to the Dungeon Keeper 1 and 2 community to remove said link. The forum itself has been praised by the lead designer of Dungeon Keeper 2, and also by a level tester and manual and guide writer for DK1. For me it is sad that petty bureaucracy can get in the way of what Wikipedia is about - providing free information to everyone. The information on my forum, whether it be files for download, exclusive interviews in its very own webzine, or access to discussion and debate, cannot be provided on Wikipedia, and so it is necessary, in my opinion, to link to this forum.
    I understand, however, if bureaucracy takes precedence over common sense, for I am British and have experienced the realisation before. If you, the unseen and unaccountable moderators of Wikipedia disagree, then so be it. I shall have to set up a proper website! Good day! BonnieDonny (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For reasons unrelated to bureaucracy, we don't link to forums. That's because they're self-published and we're looking for encyclopaedic quality, both internally and in the sites we link to. I'd like to say we get it right 99.99% of the time, but we fall a good bit shorter than that. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is mostly harmless and surprisingly useful despite our chaotic editing systems. Here's the reasoning behind our rules against linking to forums:
    OK, well I guess that was sort of bureaucratic reading after all. Sorry. But even if you just skimmed it, I think you probably caught our drift.
    It must be very frustrating to have your site fiddled with by competitors. If you have specific examples, I'm open to looking into it. No promises other than that. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers for the replies, I can understand why Wikipedia has such regulations. Just make sure they're universally applied. BonnieDonny (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As chaotic as our editing model is, it's hard to get consistent, especially when it comes to low-level transgressions and pettiness flying low on the radar. If you see competitors misbehaving, please let us know. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for unlisting of New Mexico Tourism Department

    www.newmexicoDOTorg is the website of the New Mexico Tourism Department, a state agency. I have no idea why it's on the Spam blacklist, but it certainly shouldn't be. Almost every NM tourist attraction in Wikipedia has a link to a New Mexico Tourism Department page. Please unlist promptly. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, someone added it .. It was almost added to the meta one (or is it there?). The owner found it necessery to spam it to many wikis, generally to pages where its inclusion was questionable. I did have a bit of a discussion with him, I hope he stopped after that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is on meta, please see m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/newmexico.org and m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/nmmagazine.com (both of same owner, and sites share IP), User_talk:Beetstra/Archive_9#New_Mexico_Magazine.2FNew_Mexico_Tourism_Department. As far as I can see the spamming stopped with this discussion. Please request removal: m:Talk:Spam blacklist (I might beat you to it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Obvious cross wiki spamming by related sites owner. Meta issue.--Hu12 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I removed it from meta. I presume that the owner got the message. Otherwise it will reappear .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Odd that a State agency would be a spammer -- but we're used to odd things in NM. Incidentally the site itself is badly broken -- all internal links come up dead -- even from the site search "feature". My tax dollars at work? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting delisting: www.paperlessarchives.com

    This was a first - trying to edit the article about Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, principally to cleanup and add sources, and gradually remove the conspiracy stuff. The website http://www.paperlessarchives.com/rfk_assassination.html has some references that are very useful for this, because they are the LAPD notes, which would allow me to reference the events of the evening appropriately for the section "Assassination". But I'm blocked from doing so. I presume this is because paperlessarchives.com sells information, but unfortunately I can't find this source listed anywhere else reliable online, and don;t have many books to hand on the subject! I understand if this is rejected, but I would appreciate some comment on this. The listing of this site took place in 2004. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Request unlisting of petrsoukal.profitux.cz/dnepr.htm

    there is a lot of quality pictures from all around the Ukraine. I did the pictures myself. kind regards. thanks petr soukal petr.soukal@inmail.sk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorizace (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    lulu.com query

    • I get a spamfilter report when I try inserting the following text/links:

    ABC News reported on April 9, 2008 that "the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency." The article states that those involved included:

    Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.[1]

    He says I use "www.lulu.com", have no idea why and certainly that link is not being used. Could somebody look into this and/or explain the deeper meaning of this incorrect refusal? TIA Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just tried inserting only a space. Nevertheless I still get a spamfilter notice. Could somebody please, please, please look into this? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhere on that page is a lulu.com link. Until it's removed, you can't save your edit, even if it's not included in your material. What page are you trying to edit? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is on enhanced interrogation, oddly enough I edited there previously without any such notice. If you could look into it I appreciate that. Thanks. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tried removing the link from the page[3] and as you said I can edit the page again. Thanks for helping out. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    veganz.pl.net

    I am getting spamfiltered on Veganism for this link: www.veganz.pl.net/introduction.htm

    This has been a source in the article for some time, but only in the last two days does it seem to have been filtered. Problem is, I can't find it or something else that might catch it in either the WP or the meta blacklists. Hope me! KellenT 10:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed.--Hu12 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! What was the pattern/whatever that caused the error? KellenT 12:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, actually you appear not to have fixed it. You just removed the reference from the article. That was absolutely not what I was asking for. The URL doesn't appear to be "blacklisted" because I can't find the URL on the message at all, so removing it isn't an acceptable solution. KellenT 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, so now I find it on meta. Neeeeeeevermind. KellenT 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And now it's been unlisted. KellenT 13:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ???

    This is what I am trying to post:

    I dont want to drag a great article into a revert war, so I'm bringing it up here. To me, "Rest of the world" seems very off hand-ish. Almost as though the "rest of the world" doesnt matter. Whereas "Other parts of the world" seems as though they are being included and not in an afterthought kind of a way. It could just be me, but since it was reverted, someone else thinks otherwise. Comments? (on a side note, this post was blocked twice due to a spam filter... that I was adding some odd link... I'm not, and this was a direct paste of the last time I tried to add this) Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It wont post saying that I'm adding an indy media link... I'm not. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To which page are you trying to post? Most likely, that page has an older link on it that needs to be removed because it's now blacklisted. You're not adding it with your edit, but your edit contains the link that's already on the page, so it won't let you save the edit window. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed it... although the filter shouldnt activate if the link isnt in the post that you personally are trying to insert. Thats just my two cents. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Blacklist logging

    {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}} →(replacing '0' with the correct "oldid" (ie. permalink) example shown here).

    For example:

    {{WPSPAM|182728001#Blacklist_logging}}

    results in:

    See WikiProject Spam report

    This should aid in requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and for use with the entry log here. I've added a snipit in the header --Hu12 (talk)


    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 do add 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. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

    For those with access to IRC, there this data is available in real time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    archive script

    Eagle 101 said he had one running on meta, is it possible to get it up and going here?--Hu12 10:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Would be good - Eagle hasn't been working on Meta for a while though & I've not seen anything (there was supposed to be a logging script too!) --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great news, Ive written a script that can archive this page given the templates that we use, I can create a approved archive along with a rejected archive if people are interested. βcommand 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interested" - bit of an understatement there :) Great news - please feel free to help/supply the script. I tend to leave stuff around a week in case anyone shouts or adds more (archives once done should be left alone). How would you handle the "discussion" type bits? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First question, do you want approved and rejected request in separate archives? as for the discussions we could get Misza bot over here for things older than 30 days. βcommand 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think one archive, seperate sections, like it is currently[4], not sure if the script can do that, but if so, doubt there would be objections in implementation...--Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no simple way of editing sections using the bot. (section editting is evil). it would just be one large archive. βcommand 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Request for additional administrator input on blacklist status of asiafanclub dot com

    The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.


    It's been made very clear in the discussion above that the "asiafanclub.com" link stands on its own merits, is an officially authorized site of the band Asia and offers distinct and useful information, and thus adds to the article. The behavior of user(s) or site owners is irrelevant here. I'm requesting this an impartial editor. Please consider this on the merits outlined above. Hu12 has argued against its inclusion on this basis, and once his/her arguments were refuted, simply closed the discussion and declined the request. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Extensive abuse of wikipedia
    Asiafanclub.com is simply a privatly run site which obtains any 'official' content from the Official Asia Fan Club site originalasia.com. It is neither owned by or qualifies as ASIA's official site.--Hu12 (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again you have your facts wrong, I get official news, photos etc, by managment in my mailbox along with about 7 other authorized affiliates. I also have some exclusive material not found on the other sites as I pointed out. I'm not not some Yahoo club who is runiing over copying stuff off Daves site, I am part of the trusted athorized bunch.. You have no idea, who or what we are & made it clear that you were uninformed about the change of management hands. You keep repeating the false charges I'll keep repeating the truth. There was no ASIA fan club spam... that was an edit war, I was reinstating a long time link that was removed by a phantom IP address who wrote you to go on his side. The Yes thing were private invites long before the link was in this wiki article, the owner wrote me and it was settled in an adult type manner, and has nothing to do with the relavance of the link here and the fact that it is now authorized. The ASIA club is not spam, it is a non profit orgaization & according to wiki policy, has relavant material that would not normally be included in the wiki article. That is grounds for it's inclusion in the external links section.
    The evidence showed I was falsely banned for 2 months for that, here is the OFFICIAL investigation report that cleared me of that, there is no rule that one has to use the same PC throughout the day,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mondrago sockpuppet means to pretend to be someone else, I never did. The 3rr rule got me banned for 3 days, twice during that edit war, so I paid the price for that then, The legal threat was way at the start of the heated edit war, I didn't know the rules then, so I read them and wiki mentions the withdrawal of the leagal threat, I did withdraw it as wiki says to do and I apologized a long time ago for that sir. Yesterday I made a post that described I was banned for 2 months for reason of sockpuppet/modrago, and I was not him. I was also falsely accused of COL, COL is Citing oneself, Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, (the ASIA Fan club does not promote the private or commercial interests of the editor) & it is not promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Falsely accused of SPAM & other bogus charges that I explained above are false and were thrown out there just so the ASIA Fan Club is not inluded in the article. Even if they were true, & they are not, that is not judging the link on the merits of the wiki external guidelines policy, What I did wrong was lose my temper a long time ago and engaged in an edit war and I was banned for 3 days twice at that time, I am human, was banned for 3 days then and apologized for that. Since than I did not edit anything in the external links section, but wish to discuss this with those that oppose me in an adult type manner. This page was locked to grandfathered users for like 2 months, so I was unable to state my side here. The IP you banned was 70.188.184.84. Please reverse it, no hard feelings

    The ASIA Fan club was part of the article for a very long time, actually was #2 in the external links section. I noticed it was moved to #4, so I moved it back to the #2 slot where it had been for a while ( I was requesting a 1st in line should hold it's spot thing. A user with just an IP address not identifying themself in any manner, from Canada, removed the long time link. I replaced it back, after about 2 hours of going back and forth, this IP address then removed the myspace link. After another hour this IP address wrote certain administrators and told them I was adding spam to the article. The administrators thought they were acting accordingly to one adding spam. So they banned me twice for the edit war, and then blacklisted the site. They acted under the impression that I was adding something new that day. They now know that I did not add the link, I was replacing it, it was there for a long time, but they made their call before they got the entire story. What I should have done was not engage in the 4 hour long edit war, but should have wrote an administrator to say that someone is removing a long time link that was in the article. The IP address I was in the war with wrote administrators, beat me to the punch, twisted facts to make it sound like I was adding spam. Now that they know what happened, but after all hell had broken loose, and they wish not reverse their call. I stated this before as you can see above, and CIreland took my side and removed the site from the blacklist, he even tried to reinstate the link, but we couldn't understand why the warning was lighting up. Being told it was removed from the blacklist I added another page of the website until it cleared up. I was then accused trying to cleverly revert a blacklist site or something to that effect. That is not true. History proves it is not the case, you can see when I added that, I was told it was removed from the blacklist, I even mentioned what I did about the other link in the open until the glitch, which we thought it was, cleared, I was open about it and did nothing in hiding. See it here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asia_%28band%29#Fan_club_link_blacklisting What happened was as soon as he removed it from the blacklist, someone re-listed it, and we had no idea. Yesterday I asked hu12, about the myspace links, if they are not allowed, why is one on JP wiki page he responded "As much as I agree with you, AP, that wikipedia is not the place for Any myspace links (repeat...any!), it is an official page of the articles subject and John Payne's personal myspace —and isn't prohibited by restrictions on linking. Unfortunately john Payne official myspace does belong on his specific page (any other page would be inapropriate). See the External links policies first statement within Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided section.. ("Except..." )". So this is valid under the except clause. I agree. We were also told there is to be no fan clubs. However, there is one on Tom Pettys wiki page and one on Barry Manilows wiki page in the external links section. If mine was a violation and it was reported and removed, why are not these fan clubs removed from the external links section, I have officially reported them. I don't believe they should be removed, I'm making a point. Please be fair across the board and judge my link on the wiki policy, and treat the ASIA wiki page fairly like every other artists page and treat the ASIA authorized club like those of other artists on wikipedia. Based upon the wiki policy, the "except" clause that hu12 and Bondegezou agrees validates a link to be included in the external links section. Please judge my link fairly and honestly and address each point with reason as to it's relation with the wiki "except" clause for the inclusion of a link. 1. It must be from a an authorized source, and contain relavant material that would not normally be included in the wiki article. I provided the evidence that my site is a management authorized site and is in the official biography. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/Soles/ca1200_sm.jpg 2. It must contain such material such as reviews and interviews. If you go to Asiafanclub.com we have official interviews with band members that are not and would not be included in the wiki article. 3. I have a management authorized reviews that was sent to me by management for publication. See the Trump Marina Press Release on the main page! 4. We have exclusive news, such as the announced Carl Palmer interview today on New Jersey's Own Rock Radio - 105.5FM) only I announced this! This was important for ASIA fans, ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 5. We had an exclusive live chat in the fall of 06 with John Wetton & Geoff Downes authorized by management, ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 6. We have exclusive professional photos that are authorized for my club that can't be found anywhere else that illustrate, what the ASIA article speaks of. Those photos can not be included in the article, remember, wiki says it must be relevant material that would not normally be included in the wiki article. Took a look at this example http://pub18.bravenet.com/photocenter/album.php?usernum=1471820109&album=49939 ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 7. We are a non profit authorized organization, we have given out at my cost, concert tickets, DVD's, rare videos, & two winners of the CD. Yea there were many misunderstandings, I did engage in an edit war and for that I apologize, I am human and lost my temper. It was proven as you see above I was not modrago, but was banned for 2 months for it. Ask yourself if this is relevant exclusive authorized material. If no fan clubs are allowed, then take the same action against those I reported as you did mine when it was reported. Thank you all for your time. A mistake was made here by false report and the twisting of facts, and actions were made after hell broke loose, now that we all caught our breath, look at everything for what it really is and what really happened. Please remove this site from the blacklist and put it back where it was for a long time, in the external links section. Hu12 & AB are the ones that banned me I ask for a neutral opinion that in unbias an uninvolved in this case70.188.184.84 (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) ASIA Pres.

    MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008#asiafanclub.com declined #1
    MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_asiafanclub_dot_com_to_be_removed_from_blacklist declined #2
    MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_unbias_opinion_for_removal_of_asia_fan_club_from_blacklist declined #3
    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.

    Link Blacklisting vs. User Blocking

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy--Hu12 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't understand why you can't separate the behavior of a user and the value of a link. Can someone explain to me why a link would not be considered on its own merits, regardless of the behavior of the user who's attempted to add it? I'm concerned in general of the practice, but in the specific case of "asiafanclub.com" it seems that the reasons given are mostly in regard to the user, which in my mind should be an entirely separate issue to the value of the link in reference to the article. It almost seems, in this case, that it's an attempt to further "punish" this user, by not allowing the link. It seems to me that if we're being reasonable, we would consider the user and the link separately. Can anyone explain reasons otherwise? Thanks. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AN#Community ban of self proclaimed "Asia Fan Club President". seicer | talk | contribs 15:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that answer the question? That thread seems to concern itself with the user behaviour only; I see nothing about the site itself other than that it is blacklisted. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at the links within, and the topics above? Numerous reasons were offered, including COI, SPAM and so forth. It's a fan site, nothing official, nothing more. seicer | talk | contribs 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did YOU read the discussion above? It's clearly an officially authorized fan club. Hu12's contention that it receives its info from another site is unfounded, and his information that the other site "originalasia.com" is a "fan club" site is completely incorrect, as it's actually the band's official site, which is a completely different thing. As unrefined as the site may look, it has been demonstrated here and in the Asia (band) discussion page that it's a legitimate site and resource. I can see why conflict of interest and spam would be cited in relation to the user's behavior, but, again, I don't see the relevance of the link itself. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and? It's not an official web-site by Asia. It's a fan club web-site. The actions of the users involved, plus cries for help in inserting the web-site en mass to Wikipedia via their forum, is not only unprofessional, but degrades the quality and reliability of their link. You are more than welcome to challenge this by filing (a third) request above, but based upon the comments at AN and here, it doesn't seem likely that the fan club web-site would muster another pass. In addition, I can't find a strong consensus at the talk page for Asia, outside of possible sock/meatpuppeting. seicer | talk | contribs 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus? "*Asia Fan Club Site (asiafanclub.com) - dead heat among editors, and at last check, still blacklisted. in my view its validity has been clearly demonstrated and should be removed from the blacklist. but there's no consensus either way, and the power lies with administrators here." seicer | talk | contribs 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, I find nothing in that thread that says "not official" ... — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (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.

    Time for discussion

    The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

    I would like to comment on this issue the issue discussed immediately above, but the discussion has been closed very quickly. By the time I knew this discussion was ongoing, it had already been shut! Can I ask that (a) the discussion be re-opened, (b) the discussion is allowed to continue for a few days to allow interested parties to take part, and (c) Hu12, as an interested party, hold back from closing the discussion him/herself. Bondegezou (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a larger issue about methods of editing and administrator behavior, and my original question in the above discussion remains entirely unanswered. Certainly a discussion should be open for more than THREE HOURS before it's closed, especially when the issue presented hasn't been properly addressed. It may be helpful to have some outside perspective and allow the discussion to continue, and to allow someone besides Hu12 to decide when it ends. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. "AFCP" has been banned as was his site months ago. Here are some of the relevent violations.

    The fact that you both have been "campaigning" for "AFCP" tendentiously since january is also becoming disruptive, and can be seen as Meat puppetry. Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption by those who edit on behalf of a banned user or acts as proxy for another editor's interests. This has exhausted the general community's patience, and discussion is closed. Further repostings on this topic will be closed or removed immediately, with little or no warning.--Hu12 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2008 (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.

    Changes to Template:Spam-blacklist header

    This template provides the header for this page.

    Changes I made to the instructions for admins:

    1. Added to the section's beginning:
      • "If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up."
    2. Added
      • "Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step?"
    3. Added
      • "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. Made format changes to open it up and look less cluttered.

    Comments? Suggestions? Feel free to revert or modify.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Further changes:
    1. Removed:
      • "Any developer may use $wgSpamRegex as another method to prevent the addition of spam links. However, $wgSpamRegex should rarely be used. "
    2. Reformatted and moved "Instructions for editors" section
    As before, feel free to revert or modify. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Suggested new instruction box for this page's "Proposed additions" section

    Current MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions message box


    Current Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam instructions

    From Template:WikiProject Spam header:

    When reporting spam, please use the appropriate template(s):
    As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed.
    Shortcut
    • {{IPSummary}} - to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
    {{IPSummary|127.0.0.1}} --- do not use "subst:" with this template
    • {{UserSummary}} - to report registered users suspected of spamming:
    {{UserSummary|Jimbo Wales}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    {{LinkSummary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    Do not include the "http://www." portion of an URL inside this template

    Also, please include links ("diffs") to sample spam edits.


    First attempt at a revised instruction box for the Proposed additions section

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:A._B./Sandbox17&diff=206339791&oldid=206339580


    Comments:

    • I think we need instructions similar to those used Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
    • Please consider whether we want to use something like this; if so, what modifications would be appropriate.
    • I tried to stick with the gold message box format used for the instructions in other sections of this page,
    • This is a pasted together kludge plagiarized from the two message boxes above. Experienced template and table designers should feel free to improve the wikicoding!

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tweaked your sandbox template, cut alot of the fluff out, kept the content--Hu12 (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks better -- thanks. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved this to Template:Spam-blacklist proposed additions and added it to the "Proposed additions" section above. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.kernel.org is blacklisted???

    This is bizarre -- I just got blocked from editing a page because it claims http://www dot kernel dot org is blacklisted (dots added as otherwise I can't make this edit). (This is the main page for the Linux kernel development, and it is ridiculous to block it.)

    I can't find any log explaining this crazy blocking; is it possible you have a bug?

    —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It was blacklisted on meta for an hour or so for some reason. Looks fixed now. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www dot letraslibres dot com/???

    Why is this site blacklisted? It looks like a very useful online journal. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisted on meta. see m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/letraslibres.com, cross wiki spammed. It looks like a Spanish blog, not a journal, but if we are mistaken, see m:Talk:Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Thanks for the response. Quite clearly not a blog. (Though there are blogs associated with it.) I'll go over to meta. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ White House approved enhanced interrogation
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=208339685"