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 14:34, 2 May 2011 (→‎army-guide.com: done). 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 - 427072425 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|427072425#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|427072425#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

    Proliferation of scribd links in the blacklist

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

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

    Seems scribd links are formatted in some form of unique document number (...scribd.com/doc/10935894/...), not by user name or ID. Those links are apart of one persistant spammers collection of spamlinks. Typical, Spamming, subverting the blacklist, vandalism ect type case. The log has a link to the case. I would agree, Amatulić, as to scribd... its a "honey pot" for WP:OR, WP:COPYRIGHT vios, and most things unreliable...perhaps this might be a candidate for a perminant block?--Hu12 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'd support general blacklisting with support for whitelisting documents deemed acceptable. A lot of POV pushers have used scribd documents as a way to imply that a real scholarly paper has been published on something when in fact scribd has no editorial function. They have also been used to store copyright violations, as noted in the scribd article. Also, while not a reason for blacklisting, it's true that a lot of well-meaning editors have used scribd for sourcing simply because it looks like a reliable source, even though it generally isn't. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One wouldn't need to blacklist the whole domain either, just \bscribd.com/doc/\b. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Found an old discussion supporting the same thing (note; the load time is long). Any way, there are currently over 7000 links of scribd on wikipedia. cleanup will need to be done first, otherwise we risk significant disruption. I think I recall someone was making a bot that could remove links, cant remember who. Seems there's quite a few sub-sections;
    • scribd.com/group/
    • scribd.com/share/
    • scribd.com/groups/
    • scribd.com/feeds/
    • scribd.com/explore/
    • scribd.com/community/
    • scribd.com/store/
    • scribd.com/webstuff/
    • scribd.com/upload/
    • scribd.com/partners
    • scribd.com/people/
    • scribd.com/mobile/
    • scribd.com/full/
    • blog.scribd.com/
    • scribd.com/collections/
    • scribd.com/press
    Authors pages are located in the root.. scribd.com/LauraNovak..--Hu12 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority (5000+ links) are for scribd.com/doc/*. We could chip away at the most obvious ones first, such as scribd.com/(store|group|groups|community) and blog.scribd.com. I also see a few scribd links that match a familiar Wikipedia username.... looks like somebody trying to create their own article references. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've revertlisted scribd.com on XLinkBot, which might help to keep mainspace a bit clean. Seen this post, I would support blacklisting this. Note, we do not need to clean before blacklisting (pages with the link will still save), as long as they go ASAP afterwards. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "We do not need to clean before blacklisting". We don't? How does that work? And would this explain why I'm able to save blacklisted links in the helium.com article? Just curious how this works; I'm fairly new to working on this list. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you need to nuke the links let me know, Ive got the tools. ΔT The only constant 13:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now you tell me... I spent all day cleaning up helium.com links manually from hundreds of articles before I blacklisted the site. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    dazeddigital.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I was still doubting yesterday ...

    Created a typical page like these socks do with a reference to dazeddigital.com. I did delete the page, was not 100% sure if it was this set of users, but today:

    Recreates exactly the same page, except for the inclusion of dazeddigital.com links. Both users now indef, page deleted.

    SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dazed1

    What do we do with this .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    futureanalyzer.com and futureanalyzer.blogspot.com

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

    MER-C 12:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    dogswar.ru

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

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

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

    1818club.com

    1818club.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

    Spamming on multiple, mostly unrelated articles using several throwaway accounts. It appears all of the content 1818club is hosting are copyright violations taken from legitimate sites.

    And probably others, as these four are now blocked. Resolute 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There are more accounts as I blocked a few. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tianjone02 for the list. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    lsmuedu.com

    lsmuedu.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

    There are several .com domains claiming to be the english site of this Ukrainian school (lsmuedu.com, lsmu.com). A few days ago the official Ukrainian site (lsmu.edu.ua) opened an English section (http://lsmu.edu.ua/eng/) and they make it very clear that they do not recognize any other site to be official. So I propose blacklisting lsmuedu.com, a link to which recently has been aggressively spammed in wikipedia articles by Ukr565. -- X7q (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined because the problem seems to have been solved by blocking the spammer and associated socks. If more spammers for this site pop up, feel free to re-open this report. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    flixya.com

    flixya.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

    Flixya is a publishing platform to blog or simply share your favorite videos and photos while earning 100% profit. Are you a blogger, author or writer? Writing informative and unique content is the best way to attract an audience and grow your earnings.

    — flixya.com

    As for abuse, see:

    MER-C 09:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    encyclopediadramatica.ch

    encyclopediadramatica.ch: 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

    Cthee cthuh (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)

    —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    May as well add lurkmoarpedia.com and encyclopediaerratica.com, since both are similar forks of ED. Resolute 19:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, I'm not seeing a need to add these to the blacklist at this time, especially given the contentious article Encyclopedia Dramatica is fully-protected - Alison ❤ 02:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Trolls are already using encyclopediadramatica.ch to harass MONGO, however. Note Cthee cthuh's contributions. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There are also legal issues, including criminal ones. Take a look at "User:Meepsheep/The_Bieber_Facebook_Project" on encyclopediadramatica.ch (ed.ch for short) for an example. We have impersonation, fraudulent promises, and publication of private information and photos belonging to children 13 years old and younger. This "Meepsheep" person is also a sysop and content manager on ed.ch. Social Security numbers have also been posted to one article. Combine this with the other concerns. encyclopediadramatica.com is on the meta spamlist already, so why not include a website that tries to duplicate the original. The original ED and ed.ch had and do target Wikipedians. Perhaps we should only allow links to the ed.ch Main_Page like we did to encyclopediadramatica.com? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Also I'd  Defer to Global blacklist ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Filed at Meta. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey guys, this is Meepsheep (the one listed above). First off, I would appreciate it if you did not speak so negatively of my work. Each and every one of those kids deserves to be on that page. Second, I would like you to show me where ED encourages attacks on Wikipedia. Sure there is documentation of vandals (such as myself) but we do not encourage personal attacks. If you do find any instances of this, post it here and I will deal with it properly as I am the caretaker of the Wikipedia portal. --MS ED.CH (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How about the fact that Meepsheep was blocked for disruptive editing, and if you're truly Meepsheep, then you'd be evading a block. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Links to ed.ch should be blocked. The site is even more unsuitable than the old ED.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated the requests @ meta --Hu12 (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    destination4u.net

    destination4u.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

    It has been added a couple of times to ro:Amsterdam. Perhaps it has been used to spam other articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The link sends to a site containing a link directory. Perhaps some people pay for having their links included therein. Anyway, it is no scholarly site, no academical source, no newspaper, not even a blog. It seems that it has been added to Wikipedia for reasons of commercial gain. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com

    wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.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

    9/11 truth related site being multiply spammed to at least Nuclear weapon design article [4] [5] and Chuck Schumer [6] [7]. Multiple IPs over at least 1 week's time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    cropcirclesandmore.com

    cropcirclesandmore.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

    Repeated addition of the same link to Crop circle. User simply refuses to accept that the link is low value and fails WP:ELNO big time. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also spammed his book...
    • The Hypnotic Power of Crop Circles by Bert Janssen, 2004, Adventures Unlimited Press, ISBN 978-1931882347.
    personal site
    Vanity spam page
    Accounts including cross-wiki


    Long term spamming of multi language wikis, edit warring, incivility and moving ones own link "UP" are never a signs of good faith.  Defer to Global blacklist requesting Meta --Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Meta request submitted--Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    weirdcrap.com

    weirdcrap.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

    Site formerly hosted parodies of the Jack Chick tracts, has apparently been taken over by domain grabbers and now hosts a porn site. I'm not an expert on Trojans, etc, but as I left the site I got a warning from AVG that suggested an attempt to install who-knows-what on my machine. Someone else has removed most of the links, here is the diff for the (hopefully last) two. --CliffC (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    I just added lenr-canr.org, an advocacy site which was blacklisted at meta due to link spamming and copyright violations. One of the main offenders campaigned for removal at meta, was finally successful and immediately added a link to a copyright violation. WP:C makes no exceptions for "convenience" especially convenience in supporting POV-pushing by multiply-sanctioned editors. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    JzG has the history wrong. I was banned from cold fusion before the meta delisting took place. I had previously added whitelisted links, after discussions on the whitelist page -- long ago! -- that rejected the copyvio claim. There never was any spamming, that was a deceptive claim from the beginning. Almost all the reasons given above are irrelevant to the blacklist. --Abd (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Links to copyright material in pursuit of POV-pushing in an area from which you're topic banned. I recommend you study Healey's First Law of Holes. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an advocacy site fundamentally, but nonetheless not inappropriate for some uses. I cannot recall any copyvio being proven, though such was claimed at [8] . People have posted their own papers, but that's a routine academic practice, though publishers tend not to like it. I do not see that the use of it by a particular editor is relevant, nor that it is currently being used for spamming. I do not think that after the delisting 6 months ago it can be re-listed without a full discussion to prove that the consensus has changed,, not merely an assertion that it merits relisting, and I have therefore reverted Guy's addition, per WP:BRD. (to avoid confusion, let me make it plain that I agree with the topic bans from this area, but that's another matter than the site.) DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) .[reply]

    Proposed removals

    examiner.com

    As best as I can tell, this is the website for the Buffalo Examiner (a local NY newspaper), but it appears to be blacklisted. I tried to link examiner.com/science-news-in-buffalo/radiation-everywhere (a worthwhile article about radiation) to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents article and was blocked.

    Can anyone let me know why? Or better yet, un-blacklist it -- because the article appears to be original work (e.g. it isn't a wire report, and the info cannot be sourced to any other website). 66.65.191.165 (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist to allow linking to specific pages on a case-by-case basis. This site will not be un-blacklisted. The site consists of self-published works that pay commission to the author when viewed. Links to self-published works are to be avoided, see WP:SPS and WP:ELNO. This is a source of linkspam on Wikipedia, and which is why it is blacklisted. But see MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests#Requests which are very often denied before making a request on the whitelist. Examiner.com links are occasionally whitelisted at the request of high-volume, trusted editors, but whitelisting may be unlikely if an IP address with a short edit history requests it. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for info. I just found some of the wikipedia history with respect to examiner.com. Not sure when we cross a line (obviously all writers are paid for people reading their content), but clearly citing self-published content would fill wikipedia with poor quality cites. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    'we cross a line'? No, 66.65.191.165 - you've got the position of the line wrong. 'all writers are paid for people reading their content' - yes, we know, and we do wikitrout editors who add their links with a conflict of interest, whether that editor is coming from one of the global news networks, or from some blog. However, when a site offers web space to editors to publish anything, without any form of control on who is writing and/or editorial overview over what is written, and then giving that editor money for every time his page is loaded/read, then that is something different than paying a professional journalist for their written work, keeping an eye on the quality of that piece and then publishing it and paying that journalist, not for every time someone loads/reads their page on the server of the news network, but once for the piece of work / time that is put into it. The former indeed crosses a clear line (and yes, we even now-and-then see cases of the latter, where the owners of the site are getting close, or even may, cross said line). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As best as I can tell, this is the website for the Buffalo Examiner (a local NY newspaper)" Then you did almost nothing in terms of research. Examiner.com is a content mill that pays writers per view (which has led to soe of them spamming here) and has nothing in the way of editorial oversight. As a whole, is fails WP:RS impressively. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    personalstructures.org

    Hello Wikipedia, I hope this is the right place to request that this site will be removed from the blacklist. I think they are doing one of the best art institutions in the contemporary art world, it is pity that it is not possible to add this to the participating artist. I hope it will be removed soon. Love — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inezpiso (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunatly it was blocked previously due to mass spamming. Typically, we remove domains from the blacklist when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. Unfortunately your contributions to Wikipedia consist entirely of adding WP:REFSPAM and external links to the "related link", venice-exhibitions.org(promoting personalstructures) and is considered WP:Spam.
    Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    lmgtfy.com

    This is from my POV (= I have an AD blocker and might miss problems) a perfectly harmless "let me google this for you" joke, the Websearch variant of Wikipedia's {{sofixit}}.  The MW page with blacklisted sites is a PITA, my attempt to check the LMTGTFY entry failed miserably:  The download aborted after hundreds of blacklisted sites at "B", no chance to reach "L".  If possible allow LMGTFY at least on talk pages, it is not really needed in the main namespace. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    lmgtfy.com is a Link normally to be avoided (#9) and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    chinahighlights.com

    Hi, I was guilted to give back to the internet, today is my first day using wiki and tried my first edit. I got back from a back packing trip to a Jia Yu Guan exploring the pass. There was no much information about and i have some photos and links I wanted to include and tried to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiayuguan_City to include a link I used in prep for my travels. I found it because it contained GPS info for my satnav and also about the galacier. When I added the link it said it is a blacklisted domain. I checked and it shows as blacked listed in 2009 without reason given. I found the site quite useful. Maybe I am doing something wrong and wrote the link in a wrong format. I must admit the site is hard to use, even to find this page nearly made me give up. Thanks for help, Andy - Trying to give back ;) Andy 22ON (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)22on[reply]

    Spam and sockpuppet history asside, Links to a commercial Travel Agency/tour operator are Links normally to be avoided and would fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Not done--Hu12 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    aceshowbiz.com

    It's been nearly 5 years that our site has been blacklisted on Wikipedia. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist --> Blacklist added by Maxsem, Aug 2006 So, it's been pretty long time and we would like to ask reconsideration for our website, aceshowbiz.com for being removed from spam blacklist. Here are our explanation :

    1. Our staff didn't realize things that has been indicated as spam by wikipedia at that time. They just submit our website to several directories and wikipedia periodically. Submit to a directory was common things at that time (our staff didn't realize that Wikipedia is not a directory), and one day starting at Aug 2006 our site had blacklisted.

    2. Five yours gone by, we do our effort, works hard to establish and develop our website and we have good reputation and popularity right now. Just additional info that we've already interviewed Lady Gaga by our internal writer :-). I believe search engine today especially Google will not provide us good position by doing spam or blackhat seo. And also I believe that no sites able doing spam to Wikipedia today without get detected by your system. I've seen many pages at Wikipedia that list our website with no active links among several/many sites that their links active normally.

    3. What we need for your help is delisted our website out from the spam blacklist. You know exactly that there is IMPOSSIBLE for our website doing things kind like spam to Wikipedia today and even this thing is hate by Google. By delisting my website from blacklist let my website compete NATURALLY with other great sites and let all Wikipedia editors will be THE JURY for each page that could be listed on Wikipedia just like the normal/healthy mechanism. So it would be fair to judge our content page by page instead based on things that happen on Aug 2006.

    Please consider that it is really impossible for us doing things deemed as spam on todays world. You see that we already gain popularity in last 5 years. Please consider wisely. Thank You.— Kingcomp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Long history of spamming including cross wiki. "What we need for your help is delisted our website.", "my website"[9]. Based on your contributions, It appears your are only here are for getting "aceshowbiz" removed. First, aceshowbiz.com links fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Secondly we typically do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site-owners' or admins[10] requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives availableno Declined--Hu12 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    'Long history of spamming including cross wiki.' This issue is why we post this request. While you said 'long history' it means the event did happen long time ago (5 years ago). Thank You.

    'Based on your contributions, It appears your are only here are for getting "aceshowbiz" removed.' Yes, I'm not Wikipedia contributor and neither an expert to become a Wikipedia editor, so I won't post any info unless regarding issue to our own website..

    'aceshowbiz.com links fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.'

    Becoming a reliable source is beyond the scope of this spam-blacklist removal request. We jump from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist because there is link to : “Proposed removals- Use this section to request that links be removed from the spam blacklist.”

    AceShowbiz has thousand pages, it would be better if you could judge the content page per page, case by case and not as a whole site.

    The reason why we request this because we're confident that there is no spam activity since 2007 regarding aceshowbiz.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/aceshowbiz.com ) and the commitment that the present condition will keep remain well in the future when the site is removed from the blacklist.


    'we typically do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site-owners' or admins[14] requests.' I'm not the first, previously user Andre666 and then Bignole but I once commented on Andre665 request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2009#aceshowbiz.com

    Let's assume I'm just a common user, we clearly understand that you don't have to fullfill any site-owner request in this matter . But it would be better if we focus to our discussion regarding the fact there is no spam activity in related to aceshowbiz.com since 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/aceshowbiz.com ) and the commitment that the spam activity won't happen again in the future while the site is removed from the blacklist.

    The idea that comes in my mind is why our website still in spam-blacklist while there is no more spam in last 4,5 years. Putting our site in your blacklist for unlimited of time is closing any possibilties for our site to become reliable source one day, while our site has been presume guilty in every discussion related to aceshowbiz.com, lack of trust no matter how hard and how original and how legitimate is our content. This statement doesn't mean that you have to admit my website is a reliable source now. It's totally depends on you or any other Wikipedia user/editor.

    An example of lack of trust affecting from the blacklist is appear on the discussion doubting whether any our interview is original or fake ? So here are MIMS and Jason Derulo video interviews examples that could prove AceShowbiz has the interviews originally. You have to play the video to prove that the celebrity has been interviewed by AceShowbiz.com and the content indeed legitimate. Jason Derulo exclusive interview by AceShowbiz http:*//www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00032189.html MIMS exclusive interview by AceShowbiz http:*//www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00023370.html

    'We de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages.' The 'presume guilty' in any topic discussions starting with the topic 'a link to the aceshowbiz is blacklisted', limit the discussion to dig more to our site content. The blacklist flag tend to make editors not confident to admit that the page content from aceshowbiz.com is legitimate, no matter how legitimate and how hard we create the content. Knowing that my website is in spam-blacklisted, the first thing probably comes to their mind is 'this is blacklisted website, the content must be fake, unreliable, etc'.

    'If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available.'

    I could find the aceshowbiz.com is involved in several MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/07#www.aceshowbiz.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/09#www.aceshowbiz.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/01#www.aceshowbiz.com

    But this still limit the flexibility for the users to cite a link from aceshowbiz.com. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=aceshowbiz&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns6=1&redirs=1&search=aceshowbiz&limit=50&offset=0

    These are proof that the difficulties to link to aceshowbiz.com and to avoiding debate among the editors which mostly ended to decline the request, your user tend to leave no link/false link to aceshowbiz.com as source, while they still keep post the info with text only anyway.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_Hot_in_Cracktown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tragedy_(album) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quiet_Hype http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizards_of_Waverly_Place:_The_Movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherish_(group) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_The_Beatles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgive_Me_(Leona_Lewis_song) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_(The_Saturdays_song) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Reeves (we own the content, you link to IMDB ?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_(Westlife_song) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Sean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_Reason (link using IP address) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Isaacs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Damon (we own the content, you link to China Daily ?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_albums_released_in_2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_(2007_film)

    Conclusion :

    By removing aceshowbiz.com from spam-blacklist, we understand that : 1.This doesn't mean that Wikipedia or any Wikipedia editors automatically admit that my website is a reliable website. And this doesn't mean that our website must be used as a source for Wikipedia. 2.There are no spam since 2007 and we confident that there would be no spam in the future. 3.There would be no internal intervention from me or my staff to suggest page or content from aceshowbiz.com. We let the posting mechanism on Wikipedia related to aceshowbiz.com to be happen normally, naturally, discussed by your own editors and your users. 4.Our request is limited to remove aceshowbiz.com from spam-blacklist, so the discussion regarding our content at Wikipedia can be more fair and clear without prejudice. And this also mean our goodwill to clear things regarding mistakes in the past. While AceShowbiz is a good website with royal visitors right now, it's our agenda to maintain good reputation on it's field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcomp (talk • contribs) 09:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, again.  Defer to Whitelist for specific pages.
    The reason there hasn't been any spam in 4 or 5 years is, obviously, because the site has been blacklisted. We do not de-list sites at the request of someone with a clear conflict of interest, regardless of how eloquently or verbosely the request appears, or how many promises are made. If a trusted, high-volume editor requests that the site be de-listed, we will consider it, taking into account the arguments above. For now, however, whitelist requests appear to be adequate for those who wish to link to this site. If those requests are declined, that is not a reason to de-list. If the information in the links are still used in articles, that is an editorial concern and not a reason to de-list. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    But all of us still don't know whether the site is still spamming or not and when it is ended. With all my respect, I notice that Wikipedia has suggested spam blocking alternatives and Spam Blacklist is the highest level alternative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist

    Let me quote the explanation :

    However, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers. You should consider the following before requesting that a URL be blacklisted.

    - Can protection solve the problem? If so, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

    - Will blocking a single user solve the problem? If you have given appropriate warnings to a spammer, you should report them on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where they can be blocked by an administrator. Open proxies used to spam should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies so that they can be blocked.

    - Will blocking a small number of users for a short time to allow conversation help?

    - Can the problem be controlled by other means such as User:XLinkBot?

    - Would the edit filter work better?

    Also I dig more from the list : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XLinkBot XLinkBot can also serve as a good "step-up" or "step-down" from the Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist, allowing time to see if the URL continues to be abused.

    Please consider the above alternatives, so spam blocking will remain applied to my url. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcomp (talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Your request has already been declined twice. In doing so, Hu12 and Amatulić have considered the alternatives and deemed them to not be appropriate. I agree with them. No means no.  Denied. MER-C 05:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    molsencanadian.ca

    Not sure why it's blacklisted. Canadian website of the popular Molsen Canadain brand of beer. Two other websites by Molsen molsencandian.com and molson.com are not listed. Found by trying to put in links in the external links section of Molson Canadian. Necessary since the Canadian site has different features than the American site. Thank you. Blueflashlight07 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This site isn't blocked.. http://www.molsencanadian.ca
    Resolved
    I have however removed the official site, http://molsoncanadian.ca/, for use on the Molson Canadian article. Done--Hu12 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    pv-magazine.com

    pv magazine is the most widely distributed industry trade journal for the photovoltaic industry(with 20,000+ subscriptions). I began an internship in online marketing for pv magazine 2 months ago and am learning the ropes. Part of my initial strategy was to spam wikipedia, but at the time I was unaware it was spam as I am new to this. I sought out articles that were lacking in information (or were inaccurate or out-dated) and updated that information with a link to our source article which supported that information. I am now aware that is spamming and am apologetic for what I did and will never do it again. Additionally, whoever banned our website also banned photovoltaik.eu (our German sister magazine) and solarpraxis.de (our parent company). I am unsure why these sites were also banned. If I can assure the administrators at wikipedia that I, the only person here in online marketing, will cease to do this in future and have instituted a policy whereby it will never be repeated, could these sites please be unblocked?

    See above pv-magazine.com

    See above pv-magazine.com — Paulzubrinich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    "Part of my initial strategy was to spam wikipedia[11] and did others, under multiple accounts, adding multiple related domains for the sole and primary purpose of reference spamming wikipedia.Abuse log spam case. While I respect your willingness to come clean and own up to your mistake, typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    army-guide.com

    Can you please remove the following address from the black list ?
    www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.htm
    There are details about a British gun called L118 and I want to use this page as reference for information on its article on Wikipedia. Megaidler (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    the link, www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.htm, seems to be a redirect. After a quick search, http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/artillery-air-defence/1511.aspx seems to be a more authorative (and official) reliable source on the L118 Light Gun, than does army-guide.com's version (www.army-guide.com/eng/product1941.html). Hope that helps--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. It is
    www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.html , with L at the end. not
    www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.htm
    On the British Army web site the barrel length isn't mentioned. I have searched the net for this figure and the only place I have found it was the army-guide page covering the M101 105 mm gun. There, it is mentioned that the M101 can be upgraded and fitted with a new ordnance. A 30 calibre ordnance which is compatible with the L119 Gun or a 37 calibre ordnance which is compatible with the L118 Gun. I need this web address. Megaidler (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.html  Done--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    insomnia.ac

    This site has essays that would be useful on several topics relating to videogames, such as Gameplay. The only reason that it seems to have been added in the first place is that a small number of anonymous IP editors were using it to replace other, more notable websites in 2007. Rare Akuma (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    oocities.com

    This site is a mirror of thousands of removed sites of GeoCities, which went offline some months ago. It is useful because not all sites are preserved at Internet Archive. Please, remove this site of black list. Regards. emijrp (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    Asyncop

    It seems that both Asyncop.com and Asyncop.net are listed. This site services developers and is strongly linked from Intel.com and Microsoft.com including MSDN community content. It looks like the website was removed due to political reasons and not professional reasons. The sites focus has always been parallel computing. It is a community oriented website. Please clear it from the list so that it will continue to serve the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.122.16 (talk • contribs)

     Defer to Whitelist. See WP:ELNO. This is a mostly-self-published site that has a community forum. Links to such sites are normally to be avoided. Admittedly the logfile doesn't reference a good record of these domains. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    reflectionsindia.org

    I was trying to add a link to reflectionsindia.org/knowledge.php in the article Epistemology and came to know that the link is in the spam list. I am not sure why wikipedia blocks sites that have useful content without verifying the contents. The site is not spam, it is present in dmoz [12]. Articles of the author are also found in other sites like advaita.org.uk [13] It is not a spam site and has content relevant to its topic. I find a link to reflectionsindia.org/knowledge.php useful in the article Epistemology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.207.183 (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist. The site was recently spammed by abusive sockpuppets and a proxy. That said, if you want to use a specific link then the spam whitelist is the way to go. It would help your request if you built up a constructive editing history before requesting. MER-C 10:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    charlierose.com

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

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

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

    jnlcom.com and livability.com

    I have attempted include a link to jnlcom.com in the External Links section of an article about Livability.com. It looks like jnlcom.com, which is the corporate website of Journal Communications was spammed in August 2008 by an unknown user -- as were subsidiary sites. From the history it looks like attempts were made to contact this user to no avail. The jnlcom.com site appears to be a legitimate website and not a spambot. and livability.com is a legitimate web resource for relocation information. I am requesting this URL be unlisted. [[14]] Teree2019 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Teree2019[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist to link specific pages of a site in a single article (I suggest an "about" page or something similar), which is what your purpose seems to be here. There is no need to un-blacklist an entire domain if all you want is one link in one article. Or are you suggesting that this site would be a valid reference in other articles? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have attempted include a link to livability.com in the External Links section of an article about Livability.com. It looks like jnlcom.com, which is the corporate website of Journal Communications was spammed in August 2008 by an unknown user -- as were subsidiary sites. From the history it looks like attempts were made to contact this user to no avail. The livability.com website appears to be a legitimate web resource for relocation information. I am requesting this URL be unlisted. [[15]] Teree2019 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Teree2019[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist per message in the section above. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    justtollywood.com

    JustTollywood.com is like IMDB for Telugu Movies. Its a real shame that it is blacklisted. I dont know why this was blacklisted, but it has some huge information about telugu cinemas, even non-digital old telugu movie data which is a great reference for the South India Cinema. I request you to whitelist this soon. May be, some spammers or competitors could have spammed so that it will be blacklisted. One can see the database of telugu movies, telugu artists here domain/listbyyear.php, domain/artistprofiles.php which is nicely organized. It is safe to browse and not infected by any virus or malware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.48.138 (talk • contribs)

    The domain was blacklisted due to a combination of abusive sockpuppetry, frameset redirection, misleading edit summaries, misrepresentation of link contents and blacklist evasion. Consequently, delisting of this domain is  Denied. MER-C 05:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    markets.com

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

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

    Question: What's wrong with adding another entry to the whitelist? I can't imagine that Wikipedia will need more than a couple of links to this site.
    The proposal above would still allow linkspam to markets.com (with only http:// prepended). A fix might be more along the lines of \b\.*markets\.com\b, which should capture both markets.com and www.markets.com, but not anything-markets.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised I got the regex wrong; it was an off-the-cuff untested speculation. As far as the suggestion to just continue to put exceptions on the whitelist, I'm hoping that after all the detailed research as to what the root cause was (see Talk:Ingles#company's website is blacklisted for the complete details as well as the assertion by A. B. (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) that this "definitely needs to be fixed"), I would think its better to change the original miscoded regex instead of having to patch in new legitimate references one-by-one. While the Ingles article led to the discovery of the problem, it may not have been the only article affected case thus far and it is certainly not the only one affected in the future. To confirm how only whitelisting some refs for Ingles would affect future edits involving other, unrelated domains, I tried to refer to a emerging-markets.com reference as part of the following minor improvement to Energy Policy Act of 2005:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005&diff=422953072&oldid=420785200
    As expected, I had to comment out the actual url for the reference like I did in the Ingles article. It would be disappointing to keep piling on various whitelist entries when we know what the root cause of the problem really is. 67.100.127.191 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a problem in regex matching of a leading part of a URL. If you look at the edit history of the project page, you'll see I tried several experiments, all of which failed when I tested them in the sandbox. The site http://gskinner.com/RegExr/ proved useful for testing, but the one that I was sure would work (it performed properly when testing on that site) didn't work here.
    The problem is this. Of these three domains:
    ...we need a regex that will match the first two, but not the third. And apparently the regex needs to be sandwiched by \b...\b. My tests on the gskinner site suggested that I could get something to work without the leading \b, but when I tried it here, it didn't work as expected. I was unable to formulate a regex that matched only the first two URLs while using \b on the ends.
    If anyone has a solution, I'd like to know because I've encountered this problem before. For now I have to give up, and recommend that pages be whitelisted as needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know any specifics w.r.t. how the blacklisting support works, but I can try to build on your analysis. I consulted a couple of references:
    http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/regex.html
    http://www.sdsc.edu/~moreland/courses/IntroPerl/docs/manual/pod/perlre.html.
    It appears that combining \bstuff\b , which matches any occurrence of "stuff" as a separate word, and [character set] , which defines a character set, perhaps accomplishes the purpose. I tested
    [/\.]\bmarkets\.com\b
    on http://regexpal.com/ and it worked on your three test cases as well as the extra test case I mentioned above and some others. 67.101.6.162 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When I tried this, it blocked www.markets.com, but still let markets.com through without a "www." prefix. In fact it worked the same as if you stuck a \b in front of the whole expression on regexpal (as in \b[/\.]\bmarkets\.com\b). I encountered the same phenomenon, where I created a regex that worked on an online test site, but didn't work here. As I said earlier, there's something strange about how Wikipedia's spam filter matches the leading part of a URL.
    It seems that any regex you test on another site must function properly with a leading \b or it won't work here.
    I'm happy to try other tests, but I think we may have exhausted the possibilities. What works in regex doesn't work exactly the same here. It may have something to do with matching against a huge list. For now, if there's an urgent need to link to info-markets.com, the best bet is to whitelist it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    try: [^-]\bmarkets\.com\b ΔT The only constant 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That didn't work either. It still lets through markets.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So there's an acknowledged problem with the blacklist. I appreciate Amatulic's repeated attempts to confirm a solution. Amatulic reports an issue with "markets.com", which I assume is shorthand for "http://bar.com" (with "markets" replacing "bar"). Since no one else has replied with an answer, I guess the next step is for me to draw attention to this discussion over at the corresponding talk page at meta. I'll wait a couple more days before I do that, in case someone comes up with something here. 67.100.127.226 (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instr

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins


    Quick reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion

    Automatic archiving

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

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

    Possible malware

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

    Ran the url through a few malware/threat detectors, seems its ok.
    Here are a few scanner tools that could be usefull.
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=427072425"