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 Altamel (talk | contribs) at 18:28, 20 August 2020 (Reporting cashhomebuyersdallas.com and others). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. For a description of the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. For instructions on administrating the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    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 - 974034573 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|974034573#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|974034573#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

    tumtumcab.com

    Link

    TumTumCabb and TumTum Cab have both been creating userspace articles with that website. They were blocked at least once, they will probably be back spamming the same link. VVikingTalkEdits 16:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also see User talk:Cab TumTum--VVikingTalkEdits 16:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @TumTum Cabb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Onlykollywood.com

    Flare-up appears to have started circa June 2020 and carried onward. Earlier today there were over 400 links to to this site at the English Wikipedia, most of them added by IPs in the 122.174.* range, like 122.174.60.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As you can see, those big dumps in their edit history are laden with links to onlykollywood.com. Here they add a whopping 66 links. I reverted them, and of course they made a sneaky no-ping revert here and elsewhere. So it seems pretty clear that this is an organised campaign to flood Wikipedia with these links. And for context, this is a faceless Indian entertainment blog/portal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    beautypageants.indiatimes.com

    This is native advertising as it describes itself (ETimes is an Entertainment, TV & Lifestyle industry's promotional website and carries advertorials and native advertising.) and as I reported to RSN. It has no place being used as references or anything else here. beautypageants.in redirects to beautypageants.indiatimes.com. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bri: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Please undo this. This is the beauty pageants section of the India Times, one of the largest and most respected newspapers in India, and one of the best sources I've found on beauty pageants in Asia - and beauty pageants in Asia are a big deal, much more so than in the west. Bri's report to RSN was answered by only one person, and even they thought it should still be usable for basic facts. The fact that it says it carries native advertising is not the same thing as it is native advertising, and unfortunately, using native advertising is a more and more common fact of the newspaper business,, such as Fast Company, BuzzFeed, Forbes, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, Gawker, and The New York Times.[1] It's also a sponsor of Femina Miss India, the largest Indian beauty pageant itself, and blacklisting it removes the best possible source for who won that. Please, please undo this. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GRuban and Bri:, I have undone it by commenting them out. I do see concerns here that were addressed in the RSN discussion - basically SPS and that this part is not really maintained by indiatimes, it uses their servers and systems. Please address that further. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! We will certainly discuss it further, but I'm pretty sure you're not correct that it is not really part of the India Times, I think it is. For example, go to the official site for The Times of India from our article, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/, and click on Entertainment in the top bar, you get to https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes which is the same logo, ETimes, Entertainment Times, and has different subheadings, Movies, TV, Music, and Pageants, this one last going to https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/. As I wrote, in many countries in Asia, beauty pageants are important forms of entertainment, just like all those others. India is not unique in this, in Indonesia and The Philippines they are at least as important if not more. Most of us editors are from North America and Europe, so we are used to not questioning that people in Europe go nuts over Soccer, or in the US over Football and Baseball, yet for some reason walking on a stage in an evening gown is somehow more silly than running on a field with a ball? Note also that the entire India Times entertainment section (yet another link to it: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment) carries the same "carries advertorials and native advertising" notice. I think this is just a misunderstanding of what that notice means, it does not mean either that every single article is an ad, or that there is no difference between articles and ads, it just means that some ads do their best to look like articles, and we get that in major news sources in the West as well. --GRuban (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Two spammed domains

    See COIBot report, spammed by both a (now-blocked) registered user and IPs. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    rocketreach.co

    This is being used in various drafts, mainspace articles, particularly BLPs. It's a data aggregate site and a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation. There is absolutely no reason this should ever be used on Wikipedia (rocketreach isn't notable, so not even valid use in an article.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Plagiarism spam source

    While looking for sources I found two extremely similar, extremely strange articles:

    • upnewsinfo.com/2020/06/21/plandemic-video-is-thriving-across-non-english-internet/
    • queenscitizen.ca/2020/06/19/plandemic-movie-is-thriving-throughout-non-english-internet/

    These are the same basic article but different outlets and different named authors. Looking closer, these were both plagiarized from the same Buzzfeed News article.

    It looks like they were machine-translated and then translated back. For example, "...a video-sharing platform that has long sought to support right-wing content creators" becomes "...a video-sharing platform that has long sought to assistance ideal-wing material creators". Every source I have looked at from both outlets is plagiarized, but most don't even bother with the machine translation.

    Unfortunately, for several articles, the original is on aceshowbiz.com which is currently blacklisted. This means that the sources are plagiarism which cannot even be replaced with the original. UpNewsInfo will only cause future headaches. I assume Queenscitizen.ca is the same model, and of course there are probably countless more like it. Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Grayfell: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Escort sites

    Yuck. Still working through these COIBot reports, probably more to find, I'll BL once I'm finished adding them. I know that some have only been added by one user, but overall it looks like there's multiple accounts in this spam farm, so going to knock them all out.

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Real estate spam

    These links have been added by various IPs to real estate articles. The websites promote the services of real estate sales agents, and far as I can tell, they don't contain any resources trustworthy enough to be cited on Wikipedia. They do offer a few "guides" for homeowners, but registration is required to view the guides. See COIBot report for virtualcashhomebuyers.com and cashhomebuyersdallas.com. Also recent additions of cashhomebuyersdallas.com from this June to the present, [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. No COIBot report for sellmyhousefastdallas.org, but it seems related, was added here. Altamel (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    112 domains removal

    Also, it is definitely not a source of spam; in fact is carries almost no adverts (see a sample: [112.international/ukraine-top-news/fight-over-saint-george-ribbon-took-place-in-armed-forces-house-today-14927.html])
    It was blocked based on an arbitrary complaint Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Other_Russian_fake_news_/_disinformation_sites, without any discussion or arguments, not to say it is not a Russian site (the latter fact demonstrates the lack of due diligence). Therefore I see wholesale the blacklisting of its outlets as part of political censoprhip, to prevent information critical of Ukrainian government to be entered into Wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. SignPost recently announced that Ukrainian government initiated a campaign of "presenting Ukrainian point of view in Wikipedia" (or something like that), a telling development to keep an eye on. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Staszek Lem, This is an alternate domain of 112.ru, a Russian disinformation site. There was nothing "arbitrary" about the complaint, and it was backed by independent sources identifying it as a fake news / disinformation source. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such thing as 112.ru, but there is 112.ua, which is an alternate link for it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Staszek Lem, Correct, I misremembered.
    The original with the source is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#news-front.info.
    The fact of Ukraine making statements about wanting a pro-Ukraine POV does not in any way invalidate dealing with the much larger problem of Russian disinformation, which has destabilised the entire Western world over the last decade, to the point that one party in America now seriously seems to buy into the idea that Russia's invasions of Crimea and Ukraine were perfectly fine. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely agree, I myself wrote the article Putinversteher. But what does it have to do with the Ukrainian channels? Do you know that Ukrainian govt already withdrew a license of one opposition channel? Therefore I can assure you, if there were any shred of "Russian fake news" on the channel, it would be flying out of the door in seconds, due to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide links to independent sources, so that we can discuss the evidence. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Staszek Lem and JzG: seen how these sources are used and abused, I think Wikipedia would benefit from control on how these sources are used: enforce a talkpage discussion on how the source is going to be used in that article and what information it is going to support, and when there is consensus for that specific material, ask for whitelisting linking to the discussion. Hence,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: "Seen" is not an argument now. Sorry, Jzg also "seen" that it is 112.ru. Please provide your evidence of persistent abuse (any media can mistake now and then) , just as it was with this infamous British tabloid. 112.ua is no way a tabloid, it is an opposition channel. There was no evidence presented in the previous discussion. You have ignored my serious argument of the otherwise. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Staszek Lem, do I have to send you to the pages that JzG already mentioned in the linked RSN discussion. 112.ua is also in these lists: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/jews-were-attacked-with-knives-and-sticks-in-a-ukrainian-city-uman/
    I stand with my suggestion, get some proper usages whitelisted and see how common proper use of these sites are. I can agree that there is, maybe quite a lot, of proper use of these sites, but with a persistent group of people insisting to push disinformation, wrong information, anything that can be used there will be abused. Thát is why I argue for control instead of opening floodgates. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed:
    (but I don't see much of obvious continuation of this). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: do I have to send you to the pages that JzG already mentioned in the linked RSN discussion you do not have to, because there are none. If you mean the search links, like 112.international HTTPS links HTTP links - it lists refs used in wikipedia. Since they still sit here, I assume there is no abuse in them. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    euvsdisinfo.eu report: many uk: news copied this report with reference to YeshivaNews , including the non-pro-Russian ones, such as uk:Апостроф (інтернет-видання). Are you saying that this report was cited in Wikipedia? If yes, then it is sloppiness of a wikipedian, who did not trace the report to its origin, prominently cited in all reposts. This is a widely discussed disease of all modern news agencies, including venerable ones, to hunt for "hot news" without bothering to double-check them. Once again, you have to prove systematic abuse before blacklisting. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    user:112.international : this username was rightfully blocked per our user name rules: "promotional username". This user made not a single edit. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    112 Ukraine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to it being bought out in December 2018 by Ukrainian parliament member Taras Kozak, who represents the Opposition Bloc political party. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Staszek Lem, wrong, 3 promotional edits. Spammers generally hardly ever stop when blocked, but I did here not see it. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    3 promotional edits - probably to its own user page. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Staszek Lem, it is the intent. They were here to promote. But my second part is more important. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    control instead of opening floodgates - if without proof of significant abuse, it is called censorship in the civilized world. Wikipedia is not a tabloid to rush and cite primary sources (news reports are mostly primary sources, right?) which cite unnamed "witnesses" for their facts. This mist be a "red flag" for any reasonable wikipedian. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    lol, it's a deprecated source because it's literally a fake news outlet, of deceptive intent, that was being pushed on Wikipedia with deceptive intent. It is not a usable source if you're here to write an encyclopedia. There is no good reason I can think of to remove it from the list. If you think there are good, practical reasons to remove it from the list, please provide some example good uses that should be whitelisted - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    David Gerard, Ah, I see now that 112 Ukraine (of which 112.ua is the server where they host their homepage) is listed in WP:RSP. We should really cross-link our blacklist and RS records. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah. Deprecation and spam-listing are separate questions, but in some cases, like this one, they coincide. So admins following one should probably follow the other - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, yes - deprecated sources are rarely blacklisted, but fake news sites arte much more likely to be. This is a fake news site. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    112 Ukraine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to it being bought out in December 2018 by Ukrainian parliament member Taras Kozak, who represents the Opposition Bloc political party. -- Where is the link to "the 2019 RFC" so that I can take a look at the overwhelming consensus? And exactly what I said: its guilt is belonging to the opposition. According to recent polls, the Opposition Platform is the second-position party in Ukraine, and Wikipedia is blocking its outlets. Good job, Wikipedia, supporting state censorship. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    a fake news outlet, of deceptive intent -- proof, please. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSP - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already told you earlier, quoting WP:RSP right above, that there was no evidence presented. Please do not close without addressing the issues raised, the main one being that there is no track of the serious discussion of massive abuse. You do not block a major news outlet on a whim of 2-3 admins. And insulting a fellow wikipedian, who requests answers, in closing statement is disrespect. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Staszek Lem seems to be correct. The 2019 RfC supposedly behind the WP:RSP entry does not mention the site. The blacklisting is based on another December 2019 RS/N thread which was not a RfC. I opened all the links in that discussion and 112 Ukraine wasn't mentioned in any. It seems out of process to lump the site together with others like this. --Pudeo (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The excessive reliance on journalist sources indicates a problem in the underlying article. Those articles are written for the need of the day and usually have little lasting value, while an encyclopedia should provide more solid and lasting information. (In commercial encyclopedias, news articles are rarely cited.) In most cases, better sources can be obtained, but they are not as easily accessible (or linkable) due to the copyright-paywall tyranny. Also, most journalist articles suffer from logorrhea, and could be condensed to salient tweets. This indicates that people are being paid or valued for the sheer amount of text they produce, rather than for its quality. Sputnik news covers everything relevant and is pro-Russian enough. What is needed is not more links to news sites, but better selection of information and a better style of presentation. --83.137.6.226 (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely right. However the recent developments (by "recent" I mean up to 5 years old) are seldom summarized in scholarly form. I also agree that modern journalist behave like pundits rather than reporters. Therefore from the media we better not cite opinions, but facts, and the reliability of facts must be cross checked with Wikipedians' due diligence: multiple sources, reliability of individual journalists, etc. Often it is hard to find the best source fight away, therefore we have the template {{better source needed}}, the initial reference merely being an indication at a fact, to be further researched. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (My case: the Ribbon of Saint George is banned in Ukraine as a symbol of aggressor, and people get fined for this. But every year the WWII veterans celebrate the Soviet-style May 9 Victory day, and every year nationalists beat these old farts up, ie., vigilantism rather tlan law and order. You will not find this in mainstream Ukrainian media overrun by state and state affiliates.) I wanted to add this fact, but run in the problem discussed here. I will probably will not edit this article, not in my area of interest, but here I am raising the issue as a matter of principle. In modern Ukraine all criticism of the government quickly gets the sticker "hand of Putin", "pro-Russian propaganda" or "bullhorn of Kremlin". And it is sad to see that Wikipedia blindly picks this up.) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pudeo, the RSN debates mention 112.ua. The twoi are one. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, you are not listening. The key word is "mention". My point is there is no proof of abuse. A major Ukrainian opposition party media is lumped together with Russian fake news sites. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Staszek Lem, proof of abuse is not required when a site is a fake news / propaganda source. But in fact it was abused by being grossly over-used to support pro-Russia talking points in articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that you are turning a deaf ear and using circular logic. Since you are repeating yourself, let me repeat myself: It is the media of the second-popular party in the Ukraine. You cannot claim it is a fake news site without serious proof. My second point: because of the war with Russia, Russian propaganda is quickly and strongly suppressed in the Ukraine in registered media. Therefore your opinion is without merit. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a waste of all our time - David Gerard (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't hear what? I don't see any proofs beyond links to some pages where this site is merely listed as "bad", without any arguments. Your continued refusal to address my arguments is appalling. It seems that I have to resort to WP:RFC. Have a nice day. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please supply examples of links to the 112 sites that would be beneficial as Wikipedia reference links - I asked you this before, and you haven't provided any. Do you have any? - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No I will freaking not. See you at RFC. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently you didn't bother looking at WP:RFC/A - the RFC is already in progress. I must note that free speech arguments won't work for your case - per WP:NOTFREESPEECH - and directly refusing to supply links to the 112 sites that would be beneficial as Wikipedia reference links is simply a refusal to make your case - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cangaroo court. Nobody notified me. Whatever. I am not interested in ukrainian topics, so I dont care wasting my time anymore. I am not tqalking about free speech, I am talking about censorship. I am not talking about forum, I am talking about blocking major media outlet. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You said you wanted an RFC, now that it's actually happening you don't? OK - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating: I was not notified and learned about it by a sheer accident. I see this as grossly disingenuous. Anyway, I made my statement there and DGAF anymore. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instructions

    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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=974034573"