Trichome

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎blueresume.com: disable links
Line 634: Line 634:
*{{IPSummary|216.63.104.230}}
*{{IPSummary|216.63.104.230}}
--<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </font> 01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
--<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </font> 01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

==oldunreal.com==
*{{LinkSummary|oldunreal.com}}

Accounts that have re-added the link:
*{{IPSummary|66.66.124.236}}
*{{IPSummary|79.211.227.117}}
*{{IPSummary|76.244.34.39}}

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:

*{{UserSummary|ColorblindArtist}}
*{{UserSummary|Smirftsch}}

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) 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. 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. [[User:Ham Pastrami|Ham Pastrami]] ([[User talk:Ham Pastrami|talk]]) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


=Proposed removals=
=Proposed removals=

Revision as of 01:48, 14 August 2008

    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 – 231808433 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    mediatraffic.de / fake, unreliable chart site - In the communities very own words

    Per this community ruling - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. The article, chart and website are deemed unreliable. Unfortunately, IPS, newbies and fan boys keep re adding the "source" despite community consensus. The site is still used in over 1000 wikipedia article, its going to be a nightmare training people not to use it so it should be blocked. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks listable BUT call me picky there is no way this should be listed until a major amount of the current links are removed. --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing else heard so  Stale? --Herby talk thyme 11:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    jhelumsoft.net and related

    New domain (12 August)

    Fairly obvious dynamic IP spamming. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 10:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bump. MER-C 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Stale? --Herby talk thyme 07:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope. MER-C 12:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, agreed,  Done. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    digitalvaporizer.org

    digitalvaporizer.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

    Several IP addresses have spammed eternal links on Vaporizer for purely commercial purposes. Furthermore they blacklisted link of manufacturer. Examples of persistent undo's 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaporizer&diff=222857457&oldid=222811376
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaporizer&diff=222677522&oldid=222621629
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaporizer&diff=222088032&oldid=221859481

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.78.32 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 Jul 2008

    Of possible interest would be this. --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This too.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Stale?

    greenoptimistic.com + cars-and-trees.com

    Associated domains both adding links to Green articles (always at top of ELs).

    greenoptimistic.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
    cars-and-trees.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

    Edits

    More in-depth report at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#spam.greenoptimistic.com

    Caomhin (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    May be excessive to list for now. IPs warned though which is always a good thing to do. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    afii.org

    Please add afii.org and orthodoxjewishbible.org to the blacklist. These are to url's that feature the same junk content repeatedly being added to Bible society. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    afii.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
    orthodoxjewishbible.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
    Fredeee (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)

    At a glance Fredeee seems to have a potential WP:COI and there seems a lot of keyword rich ELs added for those domains. Caomhin (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that characterization of Fredeee. In fact he declared his COI and claimed his identity here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted all the links I could find in the article space per WP:EL. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HELLO - I don't want to be a pest, but is this request going to be approved or denied? I just reverted him again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Please also check:[reply]

    ojbible.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 --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Spam domains


    Related domains


    Possibly related domains


    Reference
    Blacklisting is a last step since there are reports that Google and other search engines are sometimes consulting our blacklist when evaluating domains as possible spamdexers. In most cases, I blacklist after about four warnings. I see this editor has been blocked briefly. If he spams again (using this or another account), let me know and I'll blacklist his spam domains. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    nimp.org

    Any reason why this is not blacklisted already? I'd be bold, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the first one having this idea. :) -- lucasbfr talk 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's already blacklisted -- has been for a while. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The blacklist doesn't affect edit/move summaries anyhow. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 01:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was sure I read a bugzilla mentioning it was now the case. I guess I either was wrong or the change was reverted. Thanks for the clarification :) -- lucasbfr talk 12:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    oilcarsandmotors.com

    Original report Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#spam.oilcarsandmotors.com_.2B_spam.tenssolution.com.

    Request blacklisting on the basis that the EL is being replaced by those same IPs about once/day. Edit summaries are clear why the EL is removed.

    oilcarsandmotors.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

    Most recent edit by 67.191.3.224 includes removing alternate ELs [5] - ACEA is certainly a valid link, carbibles.com needs a proper check but at a glance it has a fair amount of info and looks reasonable.

    Caomhin (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bit early for listing in my view. Warnings etc first would be more appropriate for now. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    chaoticplayer.spruz.com

    The IP address 99.242.59.219 repeatedly adds links to this site to Chaotic-related articles [6] [7] [8], which violates the Wikipedia External Links policy on the grounds of requiring registration to view. The process of adding these links involves changing the URL of existing valid links, such as to the official website, while leaving the link text the same or modifying it slightly. [9]

    chaoticplayer.spurz.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

    Ⓔfitu (Ⓣalk) 03:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any links at present (en linksearch), and the cited anonIP editor appears to be doing this only occasionally. Blacklisting the domain feels like over-kill at present...if there's only one problematic editor, easier to try solving the problem at that level first. DMacks (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    phobos.apple.com

    phobos.apple.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

    Can anyone think of any particular reason that anyone would legitimately require to link to items for download at the iTunes store in a Wikipedia article? I'm unaware if any particular spamming as such has taken place - but I have noticed (and reverted) people adding these links from time to time. A recent occurrence prompted me to suggest this here. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the en linksearch, I don't see any good uses. Some artist/album/song pages link to them, but "download/buy this item here" doesn't seem within WP:EL (OTOH, it's better than linking to youtube or other sources of copyright-infringing download:). At least one image page uses it as the source for an album-cover image, but I think that could be replaced with a less infringing fair-use version (scan the album instead of taking a third-party's work, or pull from artist's own website to get an authentic original). Blacklist feels a bit pre-emptive right now...I don't see a massive/repeated/spammed use of this site. Could XLinkBot I guess. Or make an effort to remove all such links now and see how rapidly they reappear to justify blacklist (they'd all have to be removed if it's blacklisted anyway). DMacks (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no worries. Over the next few days, I'll start going through the linksearch results and removing links from article space (yes, I'll do that first) and see what happens. I'll see about making a request for an XLinkBot addition too. Unless anyone else here can think of a good reason why these iTunes links need to be here... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anarchy.no

    Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International, this site is neither of a notable organization, a reliable source or an informative resource on an encyclopedic topic. N00b submission by Skomorokh 07:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Link summary

    anarchy.no: 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

    Some info on the users/IPs placing the links please. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably a single user, User:Anna Quist and her IP socks. See Wikipedia:An#User:Anna_Quist for context. Specific instances of this site being used for blatant promotion and lies include [10] [11] [12]. Hope this suffices, let me know if you need more, Skomorokh 18:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly the links should be removed/reverted based on the AfD conclusion. The issue here is a POV one rather than a spamming one though & this method should really only be used as a last resort to deal with that sort of link placement. If the community feel that the links are undesirable then (with a number of users agreeing) then feel free to come back with a link to the discussion & I would list. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    prs-500formatter.com

    Link

    Note: This appears to be an old URL that now points to prs505.com, which was itself recently blacklisted (see above).

    Account

    Note: This appears to be a WP:SPA whose only six edits to the article have been to add the above commercial links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed thanks &  Done. --Herby talk thyme 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.bollango.com

    First extensively by User:Baba roy and then by IP 66.245.157.97 ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned the IP which had not been done. I'm inclined to wait a while to see if the message has got home. If there was further link placement I think this should be listed. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    hkc22

    Several IPs have been promoting an external website across several wikipedia projects jv ie, promoting commercial services. This behaviour extends back as far as 2005 en - china. An internet search for "hkc22 wiki" turns up lots of edits to the en wiki (270 hits), such as those that have been mirrored by other websites dodgy mirror User A1 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist --Herby talk thyme 11:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Can we have some IPs/users who are placing this please. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    nipplecharms.com

    Link to specific page on the site being added with the description being used: Healing times for Body Jewelry

    This commercial site (masquerading as a "healing times" site) continues to repeatedly be added to the nipple piercing article. Edits to include the link are spread apart by significant time (so protecting the page for a period of time can't help) and by multiple IP addresses (so blocking them can't help). The site's sole purpose is to sell non-piercing body jewelry and gives no useful information that can't be found on more reliable sites. The IPs have even gone so far as to "undo" a vandalism revert of mine to get the link back in the article. --132 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed &  Done. It is the method of placement that concerns me here together with use of a number of IPs. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    wisdomfinancialinc.com

    Added to multiple articles using multiple IPs over several days despite numerous warnings. IPs:

    Peacock (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. The shifting of ISPs even does not fill me with confidence that any lesson is learnt here.  Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CCNACERTIFICATIONGUIDE.COM

    {ccnacertificationguide.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 Link spamming to Cisco Career Certifications from different IPs like this. the small letter URL was blackisted and they continue to add the link in capital letters. Please black list the URL -- Tinu Cherian - 02:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not something the BL can handle now as that are adding text not links. --Herby talk thyme 09:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    oojai.com / Fenix Web Works spam

    Spam domain


    Related domain


    Spam accounts

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam and article-tampering by Volano Software Inc.

    Deleted spam pages


    Article tampering


    Domain registration

    Volano Software Inc.

    125A-1030 Denman Street
    Vancouver, British Columbia V6G 2M6


    Spam accounts


    Spam domains


    See also

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    hiitsource.com and others

    A concerted effort over more than a year to get related links (pub-6352184038900190 or registered to the same person) onto Wikipedia. Most recent addition is today [13].

    Websites:

    Accounts:

    Editor is using multiple IPs so requesting blacklisting. -- SiobhanHansa 20:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks &  Done. --Herby talk thyme 12:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    FYI:
    Cross-wiki:


    Related domains:


    Accounts:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Typemock.com spam

    Spam domains


    Spam account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    northsaintpaulresident.blogspot.com spam, disruption and threats on Wikipedia

    Spam sockpuppets


    Spam domain


    See also

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that this link has been spammed onto both North St. Paul, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Maplewood, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Seedbox Hosting spam

    Spam domains


    Spam accounts


    Deleted page

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Adsense ID: 5585439881931722

    Spam domains

    Google Adsense ID: 5585439881931722


    Spam account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    cypher-zone.com

    Spam domain

    Google Adsense ID: 1874958528963200


    Spam account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ukofficialrecords.co.uk spam

    Spam domains


    Related domains


    Spam accounts

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    termpaperessayswriting.com

    Spam domain


    Related domains


    Spam account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    water4gas.com spam

    Spam domain


    Related domains


    Possibly affiliated domains


    Spam accounts

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Golbro Tiger View Resort spam

    Spam domain


    Spam accounts

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    fifthindependent.com

    Spam domain


    Spam/vandal account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    orissamedical.com spam

    Spam domains


    Related domain


    Spam accounts

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blueresume.com

    Spam domain

    Google Adsense ID: 5373924336361027


    Related domains


    Spam accounts

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    oldunreal.com

    Accounts that have re-added the link:

    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:

    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) 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. 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)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    readwriteweb.com

    This is one of the top tech blog and news services in the entire United States, and is a Google News source. It has a strong reputation in the tech field, and is an informational site, not a commercial one. I want to use it for a source. VanTucky 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The listing hinges around this, this and this. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing further heard. Closed as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 07:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    freencaa09rosters.com

    This is a site created by the EA Sports NCAA Football community to help combat roster thieves like Brian Kaldenberg that steal the legitimate rosters of others and sells them for profit. It's simply a directory of EA Locker accounts and the web sites to the actual roster makers. By allowing the general public to be victim to Kaldenberg's scam, it jeopardizes the ability of roster editing altogether in the NCAA Football series. Ghettoshark (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There were so many problems with spamming of simlar sounding domain names that another administrator, Hu12, wrote a regex entry into our blacklist to block links to any domain that sounded like one of Kaldenberg's domains. That's what has snared your domain:
    ncaa2009rosters
    Here's Hu12's entry for this blacklisting:
    Given the complexity and history of all this, I'd like to have Hu12 handle any blacklist removal. Unfortunately, he's away for a while due to deaths in his family, so it may be a little while. Please be patient in the meantime. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking into this. Kaldenberg is, shall I say a [redacted], who we (the NCAA community) has had the displeasure of dealing with through his spamming of links onto numerous forums and stealing our files. So he has been spamming here as well? Although I wouldn't put it past him... Ghettoshark (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I redacted this edit[28] to remove an offensive characterization of an individual. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 07:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    errorforum.com

    Errorforum is added to blacklist since i added it to the section called error .I think its relevant over there because thats the place where people will get the fix to the most common technical error. Would request to remove it from blacklist and restore the link in error category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Share2die (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Links to forums would not normally be required and there has been excessive link placement - see here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing further heard. Closed as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 07:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Microfinance Gateway

    The Microfinance Gateway website (microfinancegateway.org) is on the spam balcklist. This is a very valuable resource about microfinance that describes itself as: "The Microfinance Gateway is the most comprehensive online resource for the global microfinance community. It includes research and publications, featured articles, organization and consultant profiles, and the latest news, events, and job opportunities in microfinance."

    It has a lot of valuable resources about microfinance -- many of which are not available elsewhere -- and I really do not see why it should be blacklisted. Thank you. Mikel1777 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been reported to WT:WPSPAM, with some spamming evidence. Some accounts suggest conflict of interest problems. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed as no Declined --Herby talk thyme 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Efl-Law.com

    Does anyone know why this site is blacklisted? I was going to list it on the Teaching English as Foreign Language page, when I recieved a blacklist message. The site contains a lot of good information for teachers in Korea re: Korean contracts and labour laws that is hard to find anywhere else, and I feel it would be a good general legal resource for English teachers overseas. Yodaki2 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This link was blacklisted on our global blacklist on Meta, not our English-only blacklist. Meta-Wiki (or just "Meta") is a separate project/website for coordinating activities (including spam mitigation) across all 700+ Wikimedia projects.
    I did some research on this domain's history. As far as I can tell, it was only spammed once[29] and the anonymous IP, 221.161.160.201, that spammed the link received no warnings. An editor (not an admin here), Amgine, removed the link[30] and then blacklisted it on the meta blacklist[31] (he was an admin on meta). Unfortunately, Amgine left no comment in the Spam blacklist talk page archives and there is no blacklist log entry. Amgine is also no longer active here or on Meta.
    Amgine also blacklisted a similarly named site, efl-law.org,[32] a few weeks later; that site is totally unrelated and is just a scraper site as far as I can tell.
    Here are related domains that I could find:
    I found that some of these domains had been heavily spammed recently, especially by these accounts:
    This included creating a couple of spam articles:
    I would have liked to have seen more warning given before this domain was originally blacklisted. On the other hand, I am worried that this domain will be abused by the site-owner if this link is removed from Meta's blacklist. Is there a specific page on that site that you have to cite as a reference?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can set up a whole tree of data for the later list of domains (A handful of IPs adding asian-efl-journal.com; 121.144.99.67 (14), 210.105.172.195 (9), 118.38.181.109 (1), 118.109.82.142 (1), 221.170.61.228 (1), 220.84.99.43 (1), 118.109.46.241 (1)), but I don't have any data for the first ones (efl-law.com, efl-law.org). Yodaki2, can you request whitelisting of certain documents on the elf-law.com? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed as no Declined though more to archive as it is a Meta matter. --Herby talk thyme 11:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Outrate.net

    Cannot add really great interviews for relevant wiki pages as this site appears to have been blacklisted and I have no idea why. The pages are outrate (dot) net/buckangel.html and outrate (dot) net/camillepaglia.html - fantastic interviews referenced around the net but not on the relevant Buck Angel and Camille Paglia wikipedia pages. I'm a researcher in gneder studies at UC Berkeley and I rally feel that these are great additions to these wiki pages but cannot add them too external links as the site keeps reporting as being "blacklisted".

    Please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 55starman55 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't appear to be blacklisted? --Herby talk thyme 07:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Trying to add the interview and I receive the following message:

    The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. If you did not add the link yourself, it most likely was added by another editor before being blacklisted. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted link before you can save your edit. If you are attempting a section edit, note that this block may even be due to blacklisted links in other sections. If you need help removing the blacklisted link, post a message at Wikipedia:Help desk.

    The site is outrate.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 55starman55 (talk • contribs) 16:15, July 29, 2008

    It appears that this is blacklisted on the global blacklist that is used by multiple wikis, it's not Wikipedia specific. To propose it's removal from the global blacklist, you'll need to submit the request to the talk page for it on the Global blacklist talk page over on Wikimedia.org.
    For background, the reason they show for it being blacklisted originally is here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed as a Meta matter. --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Deferwhite It was heavily spammed before (see[33]) 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)[reply]
    Thank you. I've done that. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    My reading of the report is that it's edits like these - [34] [35] [36] [37] - 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    postchronicle.com

    Verified to not be blocked by meta here. I'm not sure why this page is blocked as spam. Would be helpful (as I noted at meta) for the dismissal of rumors about Bernie Mac's death. Perhaps there is some good reason it is blocked. I don't know. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Post Chronicle is problematic - far too complicated to explain just why, but you can try http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ajdnnkIECaPE&refer=us or any other site linking to the Chicago Sun-Times. Nick (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    youporn.com

    This site is apparently blocked, but for what reason? There are plenty of pornographic-hyperlinks on this site that remain perfectly linkable, why should the most popular one be blacklisted? It is a prominent site and desserved to be unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annihilan (talk • contribs) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that "others exist" is no argument for removal. If there was community consensus over established users then it would be likely to happen but I have some doubts. --Herby talk thyme 11:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined, per Herby. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    lulu.com

    In the article Lulu (company), I'm being prevented from adding appropriately hyperlinked references because the list has lulu.com in it. See footnote 22, where I had to mung the URL in order to give a link to lulu's policies. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of lulu customers try to use wikipedia to spam for their books, and maybe that's what got lulu.com on the list. However, I don't believe that lulu itself is guilty of spamming. I would recommend eliminating it from the blacklist. If that's not acceptable, there may be an alternative, which would be to write a different and/or more complex regex that would block links to particular books on lulu, while allowing links to the site itself, pages giving its policies, etc. If the intention is to forbid links to authors' stores and books, I think the lulu.com line could be removed, and you could insert lines reading stores.lulu.com and lulu.com\/content .--76.167.77.165 (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you have a specific link at the site, the better solution would be to request it at WT:WHITELIST, rather than unblacklisting the entire site.
    However, note that forums rarely, if ever, qualify as a reliable source, so should be removed from the article. However, the link to the lulu policies may get approval from admins for whitelisting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    healthfieldmedicare.suite101.com

    I tried to post a link to an article on this site as an example of something in a talk page...not as a reference on the main page. I think the article would have enriched the discussion, whether or not it was acceptable to use as a source. I did not suggest using it as a source. Why is this domain blacklisted for spam? I can understand rationale to not accept some or most individual articles as sources, but to blacklist them? I would like to hear justification for this, and in the absence of such justification I'd like to request you to unlist this domain. Thanks, Cazort (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cazort, this site is blacklisted due to massive spamming (hundreds of links spammed by multiple Suite101.com editors). In the course of investigating the whole affair, it turned out that Suite101.com:
    • Has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    Previous Suite101.com discussions
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. This (more than) thoroughly addresses my concerns. Cazort (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    RegExp problem on pt.wiki

    Hi. Anyone knows what's the RegExp for the following:

    • travian.pt/?uc=
    • travian.com.br/?uc=

    Example diff. We need to block that on Portuguese Wikipedia. Not the Travian domain, only part of URL used for referral linking. We tried this and this but doesn't works. Thanks in advance. Mosca (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    travian\.(?:pt|com\.br)/\?uc=
    -- seth (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    bugs in list

    hi!
    please correct the following:

    \bhonor-cords\.com\b\   -> \bhonor-cords\.com\b

    a closing backslash could crash the whole extension in worst case. tia! -- seth (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, bad regexes are split out and ignored.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    well, if you are that sure, try to insert backslash at the end of the last entry. ;-)
    when i do this in my offline version of the extension (which is somehow modified, i have to admit), it crashes the script. and afaics the backslash does not need to be at the last entry for that behavior, because the regexp is built in blocks.
    perhaps only my modified version will crash, and not the real one. but anyhow it would be better to fix that by removing that closing backslash, wouldn't it?
    oh, we can test, whether the line is really kicked. if it were kicked, i would not be able to link the following entry: [deleted]. -- seth (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - fixed I hope. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, it is fixed now. i cannot link http://cool-maps.blogspot.com/test anylonger. and for archiving reasons i delete the previous link, too. -- seth (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    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.

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    P.S. Please don't overuse this function, everything still needs to be saved .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    archive script

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

    Would be good - Eagle hasn't been working on Meta for a while though & I've not seen anything (there was supposed to be a logging script too!) --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great news, Ive written a script that can archive this page given the templates that we use, I can create a approved archive along with a rejected archive if people are interested. βcommand 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interested" - bit of an understatement there :) Great news - please feel free to help/supply the script. I tend to leave stuff around a week in case anyone shouts or adds more (archives once done should be left alone). How would you handle the "discussion" type bits? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First question, do you want approved and rejected request in separate archives? as for the discussions we could get Misza bot over here for things older than 30 days. βcommand 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think one archive, seperate sections, like it is currently[38], not sure if the script can do that, but if so, doubt there would be objections in implementation...--Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no simple way of editing sections using the bot. (section editting is evil). it would just be one large archive. βcommand 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MySpace

    Is all of MySpace blacklisted? I just had a speedy deletion where a link could not be posted to the original copyrighted source because of a blacklist. Rmhermen (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blog.myspace was blacklisted Per request by Jimbo. what page? --Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to follow the link posted on the page to get to the myspace page; however, a link to it couldn't be added to the speedy deletion template. This seems to be the opposite of the behavior I would expect from the blacklist idea. Rmhermen (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisting applies everywhere (including templates), its a blacklist. Next time remove the "http://" or use <nowiki> Tag.--Hu12 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that isn't how it worked - the link in the article worked fine. It was only when added to the deletion template that it didn't show up at all - just the this link is blacklisted text. Well I haven't been to recreate the problem. Rmhermen (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean now. The filter will not trip if the link was placed prior to the blacklisting. However if it is removed, re-added or another blacklisted link is added, the filter is triggered. --Hu12 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Walled garden of copyright violating websites

    Every year, I have to deal with the individual who posted here making "official sites" for every single actor who appears in the TV series mentioned in that link. I just checked several local articles today, and found the links on them. I even found a link at es.wiki, but the article was a hoax. Now, would it be improper to blacklist all of the links within locally, or could this be a global issue?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If the links are being spammed to other projects, it should be blacklisted on meta. Frequently, however, links get added innocently on smaller projects by good faith editors who bring in article text from bigger projects and translate it; we don't blacklist on meta if that's all that's happening.
    I was hoping to look for other domains however I have not had time to finish. I will blacklist these when I get some time.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Before I blacklist any of these, I need some diffs and/or contributions histories showing:
    • Spammer has received multiple warnings (they can be across multiple accounts) (admins typically blacklist after 4 warnings unless there's some egregious behaviour that justifies sooner blacklisting)
      • It needs to be clear that these warned accounts is truly a spammer and not just an innocent editor
    Alternately, if a site presents a clear threat to Wikipedia and/or its readers, we may blacklist immediately. Examples:
    • Blatant, willful copyright infringement (I need example comparisons)
    • Malicious code embedded in web pages
    • Phishing
    • Personal attacks
    • Hacked site
    Thanks for your help. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    PS, I looked for about 15 minutes and only found this one measly IP with 4 edits (15 months ago) and no warnings:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have removed the links from our project, and removed one of the links from es.wp. It's not really a threat to Wikipedia, but the websites are constantly added and are generally galleries of screencaps (and some of the websites violate the GFDL from us).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, an old item that I did not see. I have been playing with some new stuff in COIBot, and there is some data, but not a lot:

    I have generated some link and user reports (COIBot). The sites do not share IPs (some do), but 208.113.215.57; 208.113.214.31; 208.113.214.38 seem to be one of them. Maybe this helps the trail further. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why blacklisted?

    Is there a resource that reveals the reason a site was blacklisted? 72.70.248.185 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other than the page history, I wouldn't know. An admin who frequents this page might know of a centralized location, however. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 23:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending on which blacklist was used, you should be able to find the reason at one of these:
    Unfortunately, not every entry gets logged (however there's a concerted effort nowadays to follow-up with admins that forget to do this.)
    When looking at the logs, you'll note that many domains have been logged in the format \bexample\.com\b (where example.com is the blacklisted domain). For this reason, I suggest browser-searching the list for "example", not "example.com".
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anontalk

    It seems that the spammers are able to evade the entries on the page. See [39]. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The link just goes to the current history page of Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. Could you provide a diff to a blacklisted link that was left? Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further information showed this to be the offending edit. Sadly plain text links cannot be caught by the blacklist so this is:
    Resolved
    (if not really very satisfactory). -- SiobhanHansa 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Hi. Why don't we either blacklist or "XLinkBot blacklist" all websites confirmed to contain harmful malware that attempts to be automaticly downloaded into the computer? Isn't it External link policy not to link to those websites? Or if this list is for abused spamming only then is there a list for suggested additions to XLinkBot's list? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is one of the things that get a site onto the meta blacklist without question/abuse or whatever. Very quick. Problem is that if there are sites which are already heavily linked from wikipedia, then the problem still persists. It would be great to have a way of 'disabling' such external links (turn them into plain text when they match a regex e.g.) for as long as the malware is on there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=231808433&oldid=231805690

    Leave a Reply