Converse

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 - 244412049 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

→snippet for logging: {{/request|244412049#section_name}}

→snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|244412049#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

watchindia.tv

This site is continuously being added, I have removed it on past ocassions and was added as recently as earlier today. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• watchindia.tv: 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

Can we have some IPs/users who are placing this please. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• 82.81.147.55 (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)
• 212.150.97.3 (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)

ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - problematic I agree. Reflecting & looking to list. If they do place the link again once the block expires request blocking & I will link for sure. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

oldunreal.com

• oldunreal.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

Accounts that have re-added the link:

• 66.66.124.236 (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)
• 79.211.227.117 (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)
• 76.244.34.39 (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)

Links to this website have been repeatedly added by IPs to the Unreal article since the beginning of July when the article was cleaned up. In addition, the following users are the site owners/contributors:

• ColorblindArtist (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)
• Smirftsch (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)

They have participated in discussions on Talk:Unreal, in which they are not shy about admitting that they asked people from the website to come to sway opinion on Wikipedia. I've already given them ample policy reasons to stop adding the link, firstly because of WP:SPAM, which I believe is justified because the content of the website is not significant enough to meet the requirements of WP:V -- it is not documented by secondary sources. The website's proponents (who are all either from the website itself or related community sites who couldn't help but leave their own URLs also) argue that the usefulness or popularity of the website justifies inclusion, but again there is no objective evidence that the website is either of these things. They have continually reiterated OR-based arguments despite being told, repeatedly, that OR is not allowed on WP, and they apparently refuse to read or accept established policies, believing their own case to be exempt. In some cases the visitors have also vandalized the article, used article space to make personal attacks, or overwritten official game information with information about their own mod. I believe it is an attempt to promote the website or its work on Wikipedia. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Note this off-Wikipedia thread:

• Wikipedia - Oldunreal needs some voices it seems page 1
• Wikipedia - Oldunreal needs some voices it seems page 2

and this vandalism.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Before any decision is made here, we should get some consensus among established editors. I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Comments wanted re: disputed link for the Unreal article asking for comments. I suggest centralizing the conversation at Talk:Unreal#Unofficial 227 patch. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that oldunreal.com is not a reliable source, but I'm not sure if a spam blacklist addition is the right way to go here as it's only being added on a single page. In this instance it might be better to request page protection for a short while. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

searchmycampus.com

• searchmycampus.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
• 122.162.180.55 (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)

I have reverted most of the spam adds by the above IP for searchmycampus.com. IP blocked for 24hrs. They may add the link again. Please blacklist the website -- Tinu Cherian - 08:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I am concerned. I'd rather see what happens after the block expires. If they do repeat it then it should be blacklisted but blacklisting is a last resort. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok no issues.Considering the style of contribs of the this IP editor, they are likely to try again. Anyways let us wait for the block expire. I reported this here as it was a big pain reverting these all the large scale additions of this website.-- Tinu Cherian - 09:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I kinda agree but AGF for now I think. With rollback it only takes a moment? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

sermonindex.net

While cleaning up the above, I came across this one: sermonindex.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammer

• Sermonindex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I can't imagine how we missed one that blatant! I cleaned the links. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

wiki.d-addicts.com

wiki.d-addicts.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

Links to this unnnotable wiki have begun getting more and more prevalent, as both inappropriate "sources" and as external links across various Japanese actor articles. They are beeing added by IPs and registered users, so I don't think an IP block can help. Recent removals include three links removed from Yūya Yagira, 4 instances from Joo Jong-hyuk, 2 instances from Risa Kudō. There are now hundreds, if not thousands, of links to this wiki. This is no Memory Alpha. It is not an established wiki for using in ELs, and certainly not a valid source. I feel a blacklist is necessary to address this issue and stop this flood of spam. Additionally, the main site "d-addicts.com" actively promotes the downloading of illegal copyrighted versions of licensed series, which is a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. It also has a secondary wiki on fansubs. Not sure if its better to just block d-addicts.com all together or just this problematic one. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are now 675 links to this site across Wikipedia, with users of the site continuing to add more and more under the false impression that existing links equals endorsement of this site. Something really needs to be done. Manual removal is a very slow process, so if there is a bot that can snag them all, that would be nice. At least one purveyor of the spam, User:Tohru-chan has been identified, but they have done it primarily on a small scale and mostly in trying to spam a single article (which is what brought this site to my attention). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

mymetrostop.com

mymetrostop.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

Persistent spamming on Washington Metro related articles from various IP addresses. Site is a business directory arranged by Metro station. Most recent diff here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide either some more diffs or some IPs (using the {{IPSummary}} template?

So far, all I've seen (based on a 2-minute cursory check) is one warning each delivered to:

• 68.227.205.73 (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)
• 98.204.140.237 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

We like to see more warnings normally before blacklisting, but as I wrote above, I didn't have time to really look.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see 130.160.167.60 (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) Hgrosser (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

www.merlin.wikia.com

82.42.175.146 (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)

IP user has been adding Spam links to the above address, onto various user talkpages - I propose that this link get's blacklisted I had proposed it on Meta but was redirect here. Dark Mage 09:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

south-beach-diet-plan.com and cabbagesoupdiet7day.com and diet-science.com

These three four links have been repeatedly added by the same group of IPs and user to multiple articles:

• cabbagesoupdiet7day.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
• south-beach-diet-plan.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
• diet-science.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
• aboutdetoxdiet.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

Deli nk (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The spamming of south-beach-diet-plan.com continues here along with a new one: aboutdetoxdiet.com

Deli nk (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

pokerplayersalliance.org

• pokerplayersalliance.org: 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
• Cactusframe (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)

A large number of links to this site, a poker players' advocacy organisation deeply opposed to control of online poker, have been added to politician biographies. In each case it appears that the text is similar: a couple of sentences sourced to the group's website stating that a group member has blogged or spoken out against the politician. No independent sources are cited, only the negative content about the politician at the site of the organisation originating the negative comment. Example:

* Poker rights blogger Rich Muny, a board member of the one-million member Poker Players Alliance, rated Bachus "F-" on support for poker rights.<ref>http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/congress-and-internet-poker-rights TheEngineer's Blog: Congress and Internet Poker Rights, July 10, 2008]</ref>

As this is a WP:BLP issue and the user has repeatedly reinserted the links and text, I have temporarily blacklisted. We now need to decide whether the site should stay blacklisted. It is an advocacy group seeking to redefine poker as a game of skill in order to avoid gambling controls, and does not appear to be a reliable source for anything other than itself. The idea of including, in political biographies, a pressure group's assessment of the politician's status as a supporter of poker "rights" seems to me to be unsupportable. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This fantasically ridiculous. Remove the blacklist immediately. Adding a link to a blacklist over a stupid edit war is absurd. This is a major organization supported by literally thousands of reliable sources, as anyone can check in two seconds. 2005 (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You appear not to have read the above. The listing is at this point temporary to control a fairly widespread WP:BLP abuse issue, and more importantly the only article other than these biographies from which this advocacy organisation's site is linked, is the article on the organisation itself. There is no collateral damage, the only articles affected are the ones where soapboxing was being inserted. The organisation has an article, that is not being deleted, what is in dispute is the relevance of that advocacy organisation as a source of encyclopaedic content. Thus far I have yet to find an instance where its use as a source was appropriate, other than its own article. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

False. I already had to fix an inappropriate edit you made, which was a statement of what the organization claimed about itself. So your statement is plainly false. Your opinion of its appropriateness of the links is irrelevant. That is for a discussion, not for you to judge by fiat. Your statement that this is an "emergency" is utterly absurd, as the editor adding the links has only done so in ONE article in the past ten days! Remove the block immediately, and follow proper procedures please. Warn the USER, or even block the user. "Spam" blocking the organization becuase of one editor who seldom edits is absurd. 2005 (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ABF much? I whitelisted the "about" page just now. I can edit and save the article. So, to address the statement you say is false, which article links to this organisation's website, other than the article on the organisation itself? The linksearch above suggests there are none, the only articles I found that linked to the website were biographies where the inappropriate advocacy had been introduced by the single-purpose account. This has been posted for review on the admin noticeboard (I did it at the same time as I took this action), blacklisting seems to be the lightest-touch way of controlling the problem. No articles protected, no users blocked, only one article with valid links and those whitelisted. What's the problem that needs fixing here? Guy (Help!) 11:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You know very well about the online poker article. You just edited it! Now, the single purpose account is an issue with 'that. And the point is the domain now can't be added to articles where it should be. Blacklisting the domain makes no sense at all. Take action against the user, or that specific subdomain, not the main domain. What is the problem with that? 2005 (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with 2005, the designation of the PPA as "It is an advocacy group seeking to redefine poker as a game of skill in order to avoid gambling controls" is incorrect, as per Baxter v. United States poker already is defined as a game of skill. The PPA represents a lobby in the interests of the individual rights of poker players (its chairmanship features a combination of Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians) that includes the legalisation of online poker, and the lawful regulation of said poker so as to prevent criminal enterprise.

Don't use a cannon to kill a mosquito, in this case blacklisting an entire website from wikipedia due to the actions of a single SPA on a single wikipedia page. If you can point me to any precedent of such a measure other than simply sprotecting the article and blocking the users involved I would like to see it. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The links in the article on the group are still there, there are no other links anywhere in Wikipedia following the removal of the WP:BLP / WP:UNDUE violations. Where is anyone being prevented from adding reliable independent sources by this blacklisting? I see no evidence of that. No articles are protected, no users blocked, no encyclopaedic edits prevented. This seems quite low impact to me. Where are you suggesting that this site should be linked? Guy (Help!) 14:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we simply change the blacklist entry from *.pokerplayersalliance.org to theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org? As far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with the Poker Players Alliance itself. --Conti|✉ 14:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't block wordpress because somenut.wordpress.com spams his blog. It's a simple solution that if there was discussion beforehand would have been easy to come to.

You know the site was legitimately, non-spam linked from the online poker article. Similarly you know it could have been linked from the Annie Duke article as was suggested on the talk page before you removed it. "Duke testified before Congress on behalf of the Poker Players Alliance..." and then a ref to her full testimony would be logical. Similar comments could be in many articles. Likewise refs or external links regarding a lawsuit or legislation the PPA supports could be valid links. Your argument that spam blocking it is okay because it has not been heavily linked realy is about as backwards logic as possible. Now there are at least three editors who think this a bad idea and only you supporting it, so just change it to the logical action to block the "theengineer" subdomain and we can move on. 2005 (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, for values of "legitimately"£ that fall outside of the actual values of legitimate. We don't link advocacy sites like that. And we don't use provocative edit summaries to reinsert material on advocacy sites sourced from the sites themselves, we use reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and modified the blacklist entry accordingly. The only site that was spammed was theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org, and I don't see a reason to blacklist more than that. --Conti|✉ 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 2005 (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that it was only theengineer subdomain that was abused. I've also found a blog, which I'll add now. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine by me. My point was that theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org was the only subdomain of pokerplayersalliance.org that was used for spamming. --Conti|✉ 18:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

But I don't think it was. However, I have to wade through a bunch of diffs to confirm or exclude that impression. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked all the reverts you made on various articles, and the theengineer blog was used in all of them. The blog you also blacklisted was used as a reference two or three times, and only once was pokerplayersalliance.org itself used as a source[1]. And in that case, it actually seems relevant. I'm not saying that the reference should be reinserted, since I'm not sure how much of a reliable source it is, but it was definitely not spam. --Conti|✉ 13:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

petitions.pm.gov.uk

There is no obvious encyclopaedic reason why we would ever want to link to a petition. There are a thousand and one reasons why POV-pushers would want to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.82.42 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

fibre2fashion.com

• fibre2fashion.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
• infibeam.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
• worldamazingrecords.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
• gkcco.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
• seo.meetup.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
• world-amazing-facts.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
• indian-advertising.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
• autoblogs.in: 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
• automobileguruexperts.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
• autoblogindia.wordpress.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
• infibeam.blog.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
• automobilenews.blogsavy.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
• automobileclub.blogtownhall.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
• autoevents.weebly.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

Caught red-handed for the fourth time today. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 10:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removals

www.vuze.com

Cannot add official site for Vuze (client) page under external links without delisting. At least delist it for that page. Thanks! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deferwhite It was heavily spammed before (see[2]) so de-blacklisting leaves us wide open to further attacks. Suggest requesting the exact page(s) you need at the whitelist instead. -- SiobhanHansa 11:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done that. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I've just had a look at the initial report, and I don't see the spamming. Actually, I don't see any spamming whatsoever. I've looked at about half of the edits of the IP's listed, and not a single external link was added by those IPs. Special:Contributions/60.52.74.63 was listed, for example. What on earth do those edits have to do with spamming? They look like helpful contributions to me. --Conti|✉ 11:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the report is that it's edits like these - [3] [4] [5] [6] - that were the initial link additions that were spamming. The edits by 60.52.74.63 cleaned up those initial edits and the similarity of the IP address -given the edits as well- is an indication that it is the same editor under a moving IP. Which is one common pattern seen in link promotion (and other editing).

Certainly several of the editors mentioned in the report seemed simply to be adding the official site to the Vuze page - which is unlikely to be spamming. And it seems the problem is with people promoting things published through Vuze rather than Vuze trying to promote themselves on the Vuze page. -- SiobhanHansa 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed those edits, thanks. I still don't see much of a spam problem, tho, only a few articles were spammed. Anyhow, those edits were made a year ago, so I think we can remove that entry now. We could always readd it if someone starts to spam that URL again to those few articles. --Conti|✉ 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 Stale Stifle (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

www.modern-war.suite101.com

While trying to update the number of Russian soldiers killed during the Battle for Hill 3234 I got a Spam notice that a portion of my reference was blacklisted, my reference was www.modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/composition_of_forces_at_hill_3234 while the blacklisted portion was www.modern-war.suite101.com I ask that at least the reference not be blacklisted because as it is the article gives inacurate information stating that 6 soldiers died during the battle based on an outdated source, while my reference confirms that actualy 9 soldiers were killed (including their names). Thank you for listening.Guyver85 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• That does not appear to be a reliable source, however well-researched. What sources does the page cite for its figures? Those sources may be reliable. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Declined due to lack of reply. Consider listing at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist if you just want to use one page. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

badastronomy.com

This site seems to have been inadvertently blocked due to the domain badastronomy.info being used as linkspam. Badastronomy.com is used as a reference source in several wikipedia articles and deserves to be unblocked. See Phil Plait#Badastronomy.com for a description of the site. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently badastronomy.com redirects to http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Can the discovermagazine.com URL not be used instead? Generally we shouldn't use redirected URLs. -- SiobhanHansa 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While a blog is equally questionable maybe closing this as  Declined, no point in delisting something that is a redirect. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Discover magazine website only has the most recent badastronomy articles (March 2005 and later). Articles written prior to that are still on the old site. The old homepage is at <domain>/bad/index.html. --Lasunncty (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am restoring this discussion from the archives because I feel that it is not yet resolved. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a whitelist request is then more in place for <domain>/bad/index.html, as the rest of the site is a redirect? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's blacklisted on meta (not here) as a Universe Daily spam site. You'd need to go to the meta blacklist if it is now (or always was) in the right hands. Right now it redirects to blogs.doscovermagazine.com. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Defer to Global blacklist Stifle (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

www.aceshowbiz.com

Please take this site of the blacklist. I would like to add the page of Maroon5 Biography in the site to references in jp:マルーン5. --121.83.95.168 (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can we add this to "perennial requests"? It's not going to be removed any time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.128.74 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How long do I have to wait？　58.190.13.144 (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking a site off this blacklist should not make a difference to the jp.wikipedia site. You should check if the site is listed on th elocal jp blacklist or at meta:Spam_blacklist and make a request at the appropriate talk page. If all you need is one url from the wite you might ask for local whitelisting on jp instead - more likely to be granted than removal of an entire domain that's been spammed. -- SiobhanHansa 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

members.aol.com

When I first became a Wikipedia editor, I added very-pertinent "External links" to articles, which were hosted at "members.aol.com/..." - However, they were reverted by a bot (which, by the way, has since been shut down). Also, I noticed that this page contains an "External link" to one of those sites. [7]

The web page that I want to link to was created by an individual, and was featured at LewRockwell.com, shortly thereafter. It is directly pertinent to this existing Wikipedia article, and would make an ideal addition, to the "External links" section there.

I also tried to do a search (it was a little difficult) on the global blacklist, and while hometown.aol.com was list, members.aol.com was not. Has this been removed from the "blacklist"? If not, ihow can exceptions be made?

This web page is a widely-read resource, dedicated to that book. Thanks, Pacificus (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• That does not appear to be a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Not done Stifle (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

List not working?

Resolved

Today I was able to save this edit which included the url for sexhealthguru.com (and also this one which had the url in the section I was editing).

This URL was blacklisted yesterday as \bsexhealthguru\.com\b [8].

Is this a problem with the list? The blacklist entry? Or me? -- SiobhanHansa 12:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hum - I couldn't save on this page with a full http:// link to that domain. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I can save the full http:// sss.sexhealthguru.com in my own user space [9] but not on this page. But I can't save http:// www.sexhealthguru.com in either. Is this worthy of a bug report? -- SiobhanHansa 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This cleared up and began working properly a few hours later so expect it was just a glitch. -- SiobhanHansa 21:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Blacklist logging

Full Instructions for Admins

• → MediaWiki:Spam-blacklistingTemplate:·w (WP:BLACK)

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.

Have added a supplement, a general " how-to of sorts. --Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals 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 do add a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

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

poking COIBot

I notice that sometimes people who are not active on IRC need some link reports. Admins here can now add {{LinkSummary|domain}} to User:COIBot/Poke, when COIBot picks up the edit to that page (and it should), it will put the domains into its reporting queue (high priority, which is, only behind waiting XWiki reports) and create a report on the link(s). The first report should be saved within about 5 minutes, if it takes longer than 15 minutes there is probably something wrong, and it may be useful to add the template with the link again (it reads the added part of the diffs (the right column)), or poke me or another person who is active on IRC personally. Hope this is of help. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't overuse this function, everything still needs to be saved .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

aceshowbiz.com

Why is this blacklisted, seems legit to me? Andre666 ([[User talk:Andre666|talk]]) 13:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Because it was spammed prolifically. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Kingcomp (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I manage aceshowbiz.com, I need to know when did our website spam prolifically ? Did it happen lately or many years ago ? We have many worth suggest article such as exclusive interview with Demi Lovato (Celebrity News, Sep 18, 2008). Please consider unlisted our website from your spam list as there is no such action for years. Many years ago aceshowbiz.com just a small website, right now we've already doing partnership with many big / reliable company. There is no time for us thinking for spamming. Just quality. Please take a visit to our website an consider. Thank You.

• Sorry, but it fails our sourcing guidelines so is unlikely to be delisted any time soon. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, help...

I have no idea how to make a request, nor link to my profile, but I am Soulen and can you revert the text I added to the Dragon Ball Z Tenkaichi back in, and just not the link to Youtube?

Backlog at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

If you can, please pitch in and help whittle this down. We have editors who've been waiting several months.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've cleared most of this. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost the game

I tried to add a link to www.losethegame.com on the wiki page for the Game. I understand that people may add this link in to spam other pages, but for the actual website of the game, it's perfectly valid. Is there any way to make an exception? PloKoon13 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not really the "actual website of the game", since it's not an online game and it doesn't even have an official publisher/creator as far as I can see. This site is a site about the game, though it does claim and appear to have objective information about it. At most, specific pages on the site could be a citations for specific content on the WP page. I wonder if there are alternate sources (maybe the site in question provides leads)? DMacks (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. I'll see if there are other websites around, but I think that one is as close as an 'official' website the game is going to get. :P PloKoon13 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everything has to have an official website. Mr.Z-man 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As one of the largest 'the game' fansites it might be useful to include www.losethegame.com as an external link on The Game (mind game). - Icewedge (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't include random fansites. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

An examination of the site in question reveals that (1) the content is quite limited and useless to Wikipedia and (2) the "Strategies" section includes a downloadable Firefox plugin for vandalizing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)