Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 201.163.207.73 (talk) at 09:08, 1 February 2010 (→Proposed removals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

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

    Instructions for editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 341247369 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions


    webs.com

    AOL IP's have been spamming this website into the pages of celebrities. There might be more AOL IP's, This IP is the newest one

    172.164.22.187 (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)

    Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5, Diff 6, and Diff 7. Please add it to the blacklist. Momo san Gespräch 05:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This concerns at the moment only:

    And the users:

    --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More charmed80048436282250.webs.com
    X-Wiki
    --Hu12 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Userpage spamming;
    Reggielhivich (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)
    112.202.39.140 (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 Tommy's Pet Paradise adsense pub-4763110844767107
    98.176.121.123 (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)
    76.212.197.220 (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)
    128.54.75.2 (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)
    98.176.244.31 (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 csi80048436282250.webs.com
    172.129.208.12 (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)
    172.163.104.139  (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)
    172.164.119.148  (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 eurodance4life.webs.com
    70.17.230.166 (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)
    Djnekke (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 freedomsudan.webs.com
    86.89.18.208 (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)
    Freedom Sudan (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 related webs.com sub-domains
    Japanhero (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)
    Reimon ultra galaxy (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)
    BlackBatrusJapanHero (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)
    KomoriRUS (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)
    KamenRiderDouble (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)
    SygtWES (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)
    Zzz3 (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)
    WFWEAF (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)
    WAFw (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)
    Ewhwsa (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)
    Wgfwgv (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)
    Afqwaeg (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)
    Astrfa (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)
    --Hu12 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    webs.com appears to be a shared hosting site (sometimes free, sometimes paid); hosted sites appear to be pretty widely linked from existing articles (judging by linksearch), so blocking the entire domain would have a significant impact on existing articles. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt cleanup is needed, however blacklisting would have minimal impact on articles in which existing webs.com links reside. Blacklisting prevents editors from adding a hyperlink to a blacklisted site. Any revision that already contains a blacklisted link or a reference, is infact not prevented from being saved or edited.--Hu12 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - I seem to recall blacklisted links used to prevent an article from being edited unless the links were removed. Good to hear that's been corrected. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Spamming of teennick80048436282250.webs.com
    172.129.208.12 (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)
    172.130.34.65 (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)
    172.162.57.56 (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)
    172.163.38.63 (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)
    172.163.104.139 (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)
    172.164.119.148 (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)
    172.129.54.16 (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)
    172.162.35.100 (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)
    172.129.153.224 (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)
    --Hu12 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Old Wikipedia mirrors

    nationmaster.com/encyclopedia: 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 statemaster.com/encyclopedia: 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

    These are not "spam" in the strict sense of the word, but often used misguided (unacceptable) sources. Nationmaster.com/encyclopedia is an old copy of Wikipedia, and Statemaster.com is a copy or mirror of nationmaster.com. Every few weeks, a sweep is done to remove these links, but it would be much easier to stop them from being added. There are e.g. for the moment 63 links to the statemaster.com encyclopedia[1], which are essentially (outdated) selfreferences to an advert-included version of Wikipedia. If there is a more efficient or procedurally more correct way of keeping these links out, feel free to guide me in the right direction! If this blacklisting is accepted, make sure to only blacklist the /encyclopedia part of these sites, the remainder of nationmaster is generally accepted as a source for info on countries. Fram (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this really spam? Would an edit filter be better? Stifle (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, I'm not really familiar with either the blacklist or the (abuse) filter, and this one seems to fall somewhere between the two. Links to the above sites are not added to spam them, to promote traffic, but because people honsetly believe they have found an interesting reliable source. On the other hand, they are not acceptable sources but mirrors with ads. Disallowing them will improve our articles, educate some editors, and relieve some strain from other editors (who are now regularly removing these links). How we best exclude these links is less important. Since they are external links, the spam filter seemed the most appropriate process. Fram (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a better way to find these links. There are 105 links to statemaster, and 570 to nationmaster. (Many of these links are from outside article space and therefore of little concern, though.) Zetawoof(ζ) 08:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm inclined to approve this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Fallingrain.com

    (Carried over from wrong place of discussion). Myself, Darwinek and many other active editors are well aware that this site fallingrain.com contains false information, particularly population and altitude which have regularly been shown to be grossly inaccurate. For instance it would say "771 people" in a 7 km radius yet according to official Chinese census data it actually has 35,000 in the town notincluding surrounding villages. Others include a coastal village in Madagascar which falling rain claimed had an altitude of 360 metres when it is clearly barely above sea level. The site is 15 years out of date and I've seen it used by lesser informed individuals to reference articles which is a major threat to reliability. Worst affected are Pakistan and India. I believe the community expressed concern previously about fallingrain as fialing to adhere to reliable sources. The coordinates are generally accurate but little else actually is. I propose the blacklisting of this website and the removal of links to it from all articles which I believe would be a major cleanup. The shoddy name alone is enough to think the article is false which uses it as a reference or link. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    True Fallingrain.com cannot be trusted. From my own experience it is grossly unreliable website with simply false information about population, altitudes and even the names of towns/villages. Wikipedia should be a respected source of knowledge, which it cannot be with this website used as a reference in many articles. There are much more reliable statistics and sources (especially official ones), which can be used. Blocking this website and removing all links from Wikipedia would only benefit the project. - Darwinek (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a note asking me to come here and comment on this site. I don't remember ever having used it myself. I checked however, and at this moment, 9,530 wikipedia articles have links to it.
    If the suggestion is to blacklist this site, are we talking about replacing every instance where it is used with a more reliable link? That is at least 9,530 links. If this is to be done individually, by humans, and it takes a human, on average, one minute per correction, a minimum of 150 person-hours.
    Never having used this site, I think I should stay neutral. If, however, it is blacklisted, I will agree to be part of an effort to look for replacement links. I'll sign on for sixty articles.
    Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL Geoswan. You are an old fashioned guy! 9,530 links could be removed in just a few hours using AWB or even better a bot. Nobody is going to be spending 150 hours on that job for sure!!! But the fact it is used in 9530 articles is extremely concerning in terms of reliability....

    So, setting a bot to remove the URLs, without trying to replace them with more reliable links is an acceptable option? That's a relief. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A bot or AWB could be used to remove the links. In a lot of cases they are used along side other sources so removing the falling rain website is in my view a case of despamming and avoiding misleading editors by exposing them to unreliable population and altitude data. The most serious cases are those though where no reliable sources are available and falling rain is used as a primary source, often to source population and other data which is unavailable. Relying on fallingrain for population and such figures (as I've myself been guilty of with Tibet for instance) as caused a major reliability problem and mass of errors and should be cleaned up and delisted asap.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Not to mention that the site still thinking it is 1995-6 still shows some closed railway lines in numerous articles and has been used as a primary source, so in effect it is giving misleading information and implies that certain railway lines and small settlements that have been abandoned still exist. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is with some concern the amount of usage of innacurate information from the site can be found in wikipedia as a 'valid source' - some time ago - the Australian project editors who had reviewed the innacuracy actually voted for and succeeded in getting an article about fallingrain afd'ed - that had been created by an editor who had over-relied upon the fallingrain source - and by any account may well still be doing so - any definite action in reducing reliance upon an unreliable source on the web would be appreciated by those who have to debate with editors who claim it is a useful source - when editors who have sufficient knowledge of context of some of the information - see it as a misleading and often incorrect source SatuSuro 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the site already in XLinkBot? That seems like the appropriate way to warn editors that the site contains unreliable data when they try to add it, while still allowing editorial discretion. While the RfC showed that unreliability can be a factor in blacklisting, there was little support for blacklisting merely unreliable sites absent actual spamming. Youtube is a similar unreliable site, and IIRC it's in XLinkBot, not the blacklist. Let me see: [2] Gigs (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in support of the move to remove the site from the whitelist - my understanding is it relies rather heavily on an old list which has got some circulation on the net already (the original version of Mapquest circa 1999 was based on it for non-US mapping, for instance, but more recent versions use their own mapping which is almost exactly accurate). The Fallingrain map of my own city contains towns which have never existed, misspellings/mislocations of places which do exist, a suburban boundary that is around 40 years out of date and a number of key features missing. Orderinchaos 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisting this site solely because it's an unreliable source is not supported by larger consensus. While the recent RfC did indicate that reliability can be a factor in blacklisting, there was also near universal consensus against using it as a sole factor. Since the addition of these links were not for spam purposes (but rather added in good faith), I see no justification for blacklisting this site. That said, if the data truly is unreliable, I would not be opposed to systematic removal of the site as a reference, and its addition to XLinkBot. Gigs (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from requested removals to requested additions. I am minded to grant this request, but as there is some opposition, a consensus is necessary. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference link for easier review:
    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    absoluteastronomy.com and economicexpert.com

    Links to these wikipedia mirrors get added constantly. They are mirrors of articles on wikipedia and people think they are valid sources of information to cite to. Nightkey (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Additional information needed--Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Inst' absoluteastronomy already blacklisted? Amazing... Not only is it, as a Wikipedia mirror, an unreliable and unwanted source, but it is the site of one of the more persisting Wikipedia vandals/sockpuppets. Blacklist please. Fram (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely agree with this listing. I haven't noticed anyone spam the links, but they are always being added, and are of zero interest to us. I've cleaned out several hundred of these links before, but there's still several hundred left. It's probably worth removing them before or in conjunction with blacklisting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    articledirectoryusa.com

    articledirectoryusa.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

    The articles-oceans spammer is back. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    visitingeu.com

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 09:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    accessdna.com

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

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    medicalvideos.eu

    medicalvideos.eu: 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

    Here we go again. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn in favor of global blacklisting. MER-C 09:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    neutralenglish.com

    neutralenglish.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

    Blacklist circumvention. See WikiProject Spam report. (I've dealt with the frivolous whitelisting/de-blacklisting requests). MER-C 04:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    TskTech web design

    Three blocks, nearly two years of abuse. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 09:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    labome.com

    Dynamic IP citation spam. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 13:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    watchpokemonepisodes.com

    This link contains copyright violations, so it is not ever appropriate to link to, per WP:ELNEVER. An IP has repeatedly tried to insert this link, and there is really no acceptable use for it anywhere on the encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 04:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    polimore.com

    Accounts
    This url has been spammed over two years by SPAs. There's been no response to the warnings to all ips last month, and 81.213.223.53 is now edit-warring over the links, so I've requested the ip be blocked and am requesting blacklisting.
    Note that the links being added are to sample software that's otherwise only available for purchase.
    Earlier spam report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#polimore.com --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking this one to meta. MER-C 07:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    beerwurlitzer.co.cc

    Please unlist www.beerwurlitzer.co.cc I know someone posted that .co.cc addresses are re-directs, they aren't. They are free domain addresses, of which I have three in total. Many Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.76.2 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you intend to use this site? Please note our conflict of interest guidelines which discourage linking to your own site. MER-C 10:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    homelesshub.ca

    Please remove www.homelesshub.ca from the blacklist. It should be unlisted because it is referenced in at least 2 current wikipedia entries (Homelessness in Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Canada) and (Stephen Gaetz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gaetz). It seems only fitting that the URL be provided with these entries as well. There are a number of other wiki pages that would benefit from having this website listed, including: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_youth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_shelter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada among many others. Thank you for considering this request, --Marsolais (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC) {{Done}}[reply]

    Background information
    Related accounts


    Possibly related accounts


    Domain


    Problematic pages
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    The Homeless Hub is being promoted on a number of legitimate, respected and trustworthy sites, such as the Calgary Homeless Foundation (http://www.calgaryhomeless.com/default.asp?FolderID=3173), Raising the Roof (http://www.sharedlearnings.org/res.cfm), the Wellesley Institute (http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/blog/affordable-housing-blog/an_introduction_to_the_homeless_hub/) , PovNet (http://www.povnet.org/node/2287) , the City of Toronto (http://www.toronto.ca/socialservices/reports.htm), among many others. These sites are promoting the Homeless Hub as a trustworthy and genuine resource for all things relating to homelessness. That we would be banned from adding to homelessness entries or creating new ones on Wikipedia seems absurd.

    From the thread created here, which lists all of our purported transgressions, it would appear that we are being blocked for our use of copyrighted materials. It seems that the person originally in charge of creating Wikipedia edits for us, was simply cutting and pasting content from our Topics section (which is all original material of Stephen Gaetz, the Director of the Homeless Hub). Although we are the owner of the external website, the Homeless Hub, we do not wish to grant permission to others to edit that content. Thus, we no longer want to use our original text and understand that paraphrasing and proper references are required. Now that we are more familiar with the rules, we request that our ban be lifted, our editing privileges be restored and the ban on the Homeless Hub URL be removed. We apologize for any inconvenience our lack of knowledge may have caused.

    --Marsolais (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC) {{Done}}[reply]

    examiner.com

    I was writing an article about a proposed NASA rocket. However, an article I linked on from this website with lots of info about it was blocked. I see nothing wrong with it. If you do allow this link, I will be pleased. Thanks! Theguywhohatestwitter (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com was blacklisted for abuse, and since most of the documents on the server fail our reliable sources guideline we are not removing the whole site from the list. You can however ask for whitelisting of specific links (the one you want to use) on the whitelist.  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com is the website of a chain of newspapers, isn't it? Are you now blacklisting newspaerps for opinio reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.80.147 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    modsandhacks.net

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

    Hello administrators, I would ask you to withdraw from the spam-blacklist the address "modsandhacks.net", since it is not spam. The website is new and has many projects, finally i am not the owner of the site simply was just doing a friend favor, i was trying to help him get his websites name spread. The problem is i tried editing two wikis "Wii Homebrew" and "PS3 Linux". As i was knew to wikipedia i did not know that i should not have done two wiki edits however the links were highly relevant and definitely(not spam). At first i didn't understand why it was removed because my links were highly related to my topics, however after i read up and realized that i should not have edited more than 1 wiki. I do apologize for that and if removed would not not make that mistake again. Thank You. Sud—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.32.244 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 January 2010

    Clearly you were spamming, including ignoring warnings and a block. twiceSee WikiProject Spam report no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @User:Hu12 - i have a few questions for you hu12

    A, the ip address you are relating to is a shared IP for a "uni dorm" - its given me loads of messages for SPAM which is not relating to me. i.e. Sonic vs mario. I have never heard of this site before so i dont think it is fair that i be blamed for that.

    B - ive only posted 2 link which were totallaly relevant to the pages which they belonged to which were "Wii Homebrew" and "PS3 Linux" i cant understand why this is considered SPAM. For example if another IP was to "SPAM" a web address into wikipedia would that mean you would also ban them. Wouldnt that make it very easy for the competition to sabotage the site reputation by getting it banned from wiki? I personally think that this is clearly unfair.

    C - Can i request for certain pages to be unblocked and defered to the whitelist for my site?

    D - If like in my situation someone else but the web developer makes a link on wiki and it gets banned, does that mean the developer should be penalized. I can understand my IP and account being banned but cant see the logic in banning a site that has no direct relation to it.

    E - Why is my google publisher ID being broadcast on this site? I request that you take that off as that breaks googles TOS, you should not have that there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.32.244 (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A: Both of those sites have the same (presumably your) AdSense ID in them. It's a foregone conclusion that they're both yours.
    B: "Totally relevant" may be a bit of a stretch: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Also, see below.
    C: As the author of the site, no. An established editor can make that request if the pages are deemed necessary, though.
    D: At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter to us who posted the link. What matters is that we don't want it, so it's blocked.
    E: Your Google AdSense ID is visible in the source code of both sites. It isn't private information. Zetawoof(ζ) 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adsense Publisher account # 8660584239457560 owns both sonic-vs-mario.blogspot.com and modsandhacks.net, youve added both.
    • Twice vandalized this report [8][9]
    • Multiple warnings have been ignored and Twice have been blocked and continued spamming [10][11].
    It has become apparent that your account(s) are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising", equaly Wikipedia is not a place to promote Adsense related sites. no Declined per evidence of abuse and the well reasoned and detailed explaination by Zetawoof. Closing as vexatious due to this report being vandalized.--Hu12 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    attukaldevi.com

    I have absolutely no idea why this site is blocked. I am a web admin of attukaldevi.com, and the site providing the details of Attukal Devi Temple in Trivandrum, Kerala, India. I request you to visit this site and conform its. I don't understand why is blocked, so I am making this request to unblock it. — Nakshathra wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

    no Declined It was blacklisted because you and the IP the were adding links to it ignored warnings to stop adding links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    neutralaccent.com

    Kindly reconsider this website and remove from spamlist. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.78.122 (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued spamming with redirect domain neutralenglish.com. See WikiProject Spam report. That domain is likely to be added. Rejected MER-C 04:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.HelloNingbo.com

    Hello, I am the new webmaster of a city guide website called HelloNingbo and I have already started updating quite a few pages. Today HelloNingbo is PR6 and quite popular amongst expats and visitors in Ningbo-China. This site used to be listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ningbo .
    Unfortunately the webmaster that left last December told me the link was regularly removed by a competitor listed on the same page and after several times, he began to be fed up and also removed the other one. The result of course was that there were both finally banned. What a pity to be so childish! Not only the webmasters were both punished but readers also missed some chances to get even more content. But we cannot go back and what has been done cannot be changed today...
    About 3 weeks ago everyone celebrated the new year with new goals in personal life and business careers. So I would like to catch the opportunity to restart on a good basis and hope we could have this link back. I have only one word and write here that I WON'T remove any link EVEN if mine was removed. But if anyone was to remove the link again, I wish I could get in contact with an administrator helping me to lock the link.
    I appreciate the work of all administrators/contributors and perfectly understand that you have lots of other things to do instead of interfering in stupid conflicts. This is why I would like to express here my sincere apologies in the name of the whole HelloNingbo team and would like you to consider it as a silly mistake that people did time for it. I hope the Wikipedia team can give HelloNingbo a last chance to be listed and I thank you very much for your time and concern.
    Paul - Webmaster: www.HelloNingbo.com - January 25, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.12.28.98 (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Origional case. Yes, there was significant disruption and abuse. Respectfully, we do not remove domains from the blacklist when site owners or webmasters request them. Instead we de-blacklist sites when trusted and established editors request use of a blacklisted link in support of our encyclopedic pages. Additionaly this appears to be nothing more than a tourism/directory/social site[12] and is a Link normally to be avoided. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for your answer. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.179.47.94 (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.israelnewsagency.com/iranholocaustcartoonsisraelseo48480207.html ISRAEL NEWS AGENCY

    Please remove this site www.israelnewsagency.com/iranholocaustcartoonsisraelseo48480207.html ISRAEL NEWS AGENCY from blacklist. How it ever got there in the first place?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Serious abuse, copyright violation, attacks on named Wikipedians and it is not itself a reliable or attributable source. This is not a legitimate news agency, nor does it have editorial oversight. I inclined not to de-list at this time.--Hu12 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Thank you for the link! I really enjoyed reading this article www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediaterrorismiranrussialeninisraelcensorship4877031407.html. Then I checked the facts about user Essjay, who is discussed in the article. Guess what, everything that the article claims is the truth including the article about Wikipedia in New Yorker magazine. Here's only one diff from now retired user Essjay talk page. I believe blacklisting Israelnewsagency is a censorship in its worst. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not going to willingly deblacklist a site that (α) is a blog (and thus unverifiable), (β) has (attempted to) out(ed) users in the past (as that's harassment), and (δ) has someone trolling for its removal. Besides, we're not covering up Essjay. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider "troling" as a personal attack. Grow up and be civil before you edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pot, meet kettle. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    According to quantcast, it "offers news, live radio broadcasts, political commentary, Arab press coverage and a video gallery. Also available in French, Russian and Hebrew" In fact, quantcast has the stats here and notice that the audience for this are also likely to visit ynetnews, National Review, Weekly Standard, Jerusalem Post, Washington Times, spiegel.de and the Wall Street Journal. also "The site reaches over 138K US monthly people, attracts a more educated, 50+ , rather male, mostly Caucasian following" If it were a spam site, would 138 thousand (more) educated people be likely to read it every month? I think you are making a big mistake here. Stellarkid (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not it. The webmaster of the site (whom is banned) has used the site to post private and personal information on other Wikipedia editors. (It's worth noting that it was primarily for this reason Encyclopædia Dramatica got blacklisted.) Also, the site is a blog, and thus a site to be avoided. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 05:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ::Nonsense. You can ban the webmaster but the site is not a blog. It is a respectable news site, and the information about Essjay was not unearthed by INN. The Essjay article was properly newsworthy. If it had been done by the NY Times would you ban the NY Times? Stellarkid (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    Plus it is one thing to have a site to avoid, and quite another to put it on a blacklist. Stellarkid (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Chummer, we have no interest in hiding Essjay. Drop the straw-man, please; it's useless. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not interested in the Essjay controversy either. Nations online [13] gives information about Israel and INN is listed as online news from Israel --it is first in the list which includes Globes, Haaretz, Israel wire, Jerusalem Post and kolisrael.com. Stellarkid (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Then why do you keep bringing Essjay up? —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 05:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ::(ec)It is being used as an excuse to maintain this blacklist. The censorship thing is not about this one individual. Putting this site on the blacklist is censoring a point of view. The idea of simply blacklisting a perfectly respectable source because the sitemaster did not follow wiki rules is abysmally parochial. The site is respectable, and WP is demonstrating its ignorance by keeping it on some SPAM blacklist. Any site can be misused btw which seemed to be another argument made for keeping it on the list. Because it has been misused or misappropriated does not make it a blacklisted spam site. Stellarkid (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, Essjay's being used by *you* as an excuse to try and remove a site which has, primarily, been used to harass editors and (due to it being a blog) is not a reliable source. Try again. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 05:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stellarkid, you seem to be confusing Israel News Agency, the subject of this section, with Israel National News (Arutz Sheva). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Aye. None of what I said above, AFAIK, applies to Israel National News; only to Israel News Agency. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying to follow this discussion. I am not sure how any current blacklisting relates to Essjay, who to my best knowledge has not been active on Wikipedia since he stopped editing under that name almost 3 years ago. -- Pakaran 06:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ok well it looks like I don't know what I was talking about. You are right Malik. I am confused. Not clear on this Israel News Agency and will check it out. Stellarkid (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Control4

    specifically: Control4.com, for use in article Control4

    Link is to a company that produces well-known home automation hardware. May have been blacklisted due to a new user long ago unfamiliar with WP:CORP, who was persistently posting the same spammy incoherent article each time it got speedy deleted. The company itself has no notability concerns or spammy problems that would merit blacklisting. Reswobslc (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jess Harnell Official Website

    specifically: jessharnell.cjb.net/

    This is Website of actor/voice actor Jess Harnell. I'm trying to add this external link to his article Jess Harnell. Wolfdog406 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    cjb.net is a URL shortener, so it won't be delisted. Try http://www.freewebs.com/jessharnell instead. no Declined MER-C 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    One Ezinearticle page to be unlisted

    Hi, I wish to use ezinearticles.com/?Calvin-Klein---Calvin-Kleins-Success-Story&id=240949 as a source in Calvin Klein, it has a detailed biography of use. Thanks. --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 13:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You have to request that on the whitelist. Hence,  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    jonsay.co.uk

    I`m the website owner of jonsay.co.uk and I know my site is listed in the blacklist. Quite frankly that is probably due to me. As all website owners should be aware, placing their own website links etc.. in wikipedia should be avoided at all cost, however the temptation is sometimes just too great. As far as I know 2 people have posted links from my website into wikipedia articles, and I am grateful. I on the other hand tried to also post 4 specific links into wikipedia myself. I placed them all on the same day, within about 1 hour. It has resulted in my website being blacklisted. I don`t deny I did it, but I honestly am sorry. Leave me in the blacklist, it is where I should be. If in the future one of your editors deems that my website might have something to add to wikipedia, then I will also be grateful to them. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.235.77 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess that's no action required, then. In the future, please note that this site is listed on the global blacklist so any future delisting requests should be taken there. MER-C 11:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    biblewalks.com

    Please consider removing our site, [www.BibleWalks.com], from spam blacklist. It is there already for 3 years. BibleWalks is one of the leading web sites on the Holy Land, with 4,000 photos covering 250 Biblical sites. We hope it can be de-blacklisted,and adhere to Wikepedia's spam rules. Biblewalks (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This site is listed on the global spam blacklist, so you need to take it up over there. Bear in mind that we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our encyclopedia.  Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 10:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.centrozenmex.co.cc

    Got a blacklisting message while trying to update the link in the External Links section of the John Tesshin Sanderson page. Checking the blacklist shows an entry for \b.co\.cc\b that is too broad, basically blacklisting every site in the .co.cc domain. All domains under .co.cc are free domains, and I suppose that some people could use them for spam, just as some people use domains under .com for spam. However, blacklisting all domains under .co.cc seems like a heavy-handed approach. The blacklist does contain entries for nine different individual domains under .co.cc, such as \bvaruninfosys\.co\.cc\b and \bworld-forex\.co\.cc\b, so I'm not sure why the blacklist of all .co.cc domains appears later in the blacklist. It would seem like the individual blacklist entries for bad .co.cc sites are the way to go, and the \b.co\.cc\b entry for blacklisting all domains under .co.cc should be removed. 201.163.207.73 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Scientific Exploration Society

    I recently tried to add a reference to the following website: www.ses-explore.org (Scientific Exploration Society, a charity founded in 1969), and the blacklist prevented me from doing so. I think the problem is the "\bexplore\.org\b" line in the spam-blacklist. Is it possible to either whitelist the SES website, or (preferably) avoid having such a wide-ranging regex that seems to be catching any .org link with the word "explore" in the URL. That seems a bit broad to me, though I checked the log and the reason for the addition is here. I'm not entirely sure what should be done here, so that's why I'm posting in this section. One thing to note is that charities use the ".org" domain (in the UK at least), so any charity with the word "explore" in their URL will get blacklisted under the current regex, I think. Hope there is a simple way to solve this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Should I put this in a different section to get more attention? Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One possible solution would be changing this entry to [\.\/]explore\.org\b (if my regex and understanding of spam blacklist behaviour is correct - should block www.explore.org and h++p://explore.org but nothing else). By my count there are four active admins that do a lot of anti-spam work, two of which haven't edited since you posted this and the others don't frequent this page. I've seen stuff on this page go unanswered for months. MER-C 11:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for being impatient. Maybe those whose posts were unanswered never followed up and pestered for an answer? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problems. (The time I was talking about was August-September 2008, where blacklisting activity virtually stopped. The subsequent archives tell the story. The admins that usually handle requests here - Hu12 and A.B. - appear to be on a break, this is starting to look like one of those times). MER-C 10:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have whitelisted '\bses-explore\.org\b', which should allow you to link to http://ses-explore.org. Hope this resolves the problem. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting, only domains ending in explore.org where there is nothing alphanumerical before the first 'e' would be blocked, e.g. exploreR.org would not be blocked, reexplore.org would not be blocked, re-explore.org would, as would explore.org.uk, but the collateral damage is quite small (and unfortunately, sometimes 'needed' due to spammer creativity). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for dealing with this. I'll go add in the reference now. In passing, I would also like to note that www.explore.org looks like a legitimate site to me, and may well get referenced in some articles at some point in the future, despite the promotional activity that occurred. One article where it would be a legitimate external link would be Annenberg Foundation. Also, there are several interviews and other material on that site that would be legitimate external links or even (possibly) references for articles. I guess, however, that the normal thing is to wait until an editor trips over the blacklist and comes here making a specific request. I don't totally agree with that, but I can understand it given the volume of spamming that hits Wikipedia and the numbers of people willing to deal with it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That would generally be the case, though we prefer whitelisting in those cases. MER-C 10:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    hi!
    to block (www.explore.org and h++p://explore.org) one can use
    (?<=\.|://)explore\.org
    I'll do that. -- seth (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2010 (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

    Should we split up the blacklist log into monthly sections? It's already 300k. I would, but I can't. MER-C 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll archive shortly. --Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Archived most--Hu12 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was splitting up MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log into monthly sections. MER-C 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi!
    I agree, but please inform me before doing that, because I'd have to modify my log-searching tool.
    It would be nice, if you could do it somehow similar to meta. There should be one all-containing archive page like [14]. -- seth (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=341247369"