MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2008

=Proposed additions=

phobos.apple.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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

greenoptimistic.com + cars-and-trees.com
Associated domains both adding links to Green articles (always at top of ELs).


 * Edits
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

More in-depth report at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam

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


 * 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)

Now ? -- Herby talk thyme 11:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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:

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


 * Spam domains:


 * Related domains:


 * Possibly related domains:


 * Reference:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (permanent link)


 * 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)

Now ? -- Herby talk thyme 11:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

oilcarsandmotors.com
Original report Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam.

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.



Most recent edit by 67.191.3.224 includes removing alternate ELs - 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)


 * 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)

Now ? -- Herby talk thyme 11:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

chaoticplayer.spruz.com
The IP address 99.242.59.219 repeatedly adds links to this site to Chaotic-related articles , 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. 



Ⓔfitu (Ⓣalk) 03:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Now ? -- Herby talk thyme 11:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)




 * 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)

Now ? -- Herby talk thyme 11:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Will keep an eye out> ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

weddings-readings.info


Editors:

All accounts warned Maxpogoda back adding it today.

A permanent block of the Maxpogoda account might be a good idea too since it seems to be spam only.-- SiobhanHansa 14:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Spamming continuing . -- SiobhanHansa 11:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅, spam article deleted, spammer blocked. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

sermonaudio.com

 * Spammers

From, reported by MER-C, raised again at. Connection to banned user:Jason Gastrich, whose domains are all on the meta blacklist. Adding now, this for logging. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And this is, I suppose, an entirely good faith attempt to deal with spam, and not an attempt to bypass community discussion and get the upper hand in an edit dispute? *Dan T.* (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, absolutely. As you would have seen, had you checked, I have zero previous interaction with any of these users or articles prior to the spamming being drawn to my attention. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You did, however, take the action you did right after taking sides in an edit dispute over a link to the site in question that was not inserted by a spammer or a banned user, and giving dubious justifications for your position that seemed to derive from damnatio memoriae, despite this concept being repeatedly defeated in other cases. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling and find something productive to do besides impeding spam cleanup. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When you don't have a logical response to the points somebody makes, I guess calling him a "troll" is the next best thing to do. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, Dan, anything you say. A user noted a spammy site related to a banned user, and I immediately assumed my secret identity of InvolvedMan, conflicted in every single action with respect to the reporting user, the user placing the link, the site owner and his IPs, the subject, anything tangentially related to the word "spam" and of course all religion articles due to their close synergetic relationship with the term "sermon".  Alternatively, maybe I just cleaned that one first.  Oh yes, that's what happened, how astounding that you didn't notice.  We're done here, I think.  Guy (Help!) 22:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Dan, I'm going to intervene here to suggest a different and more helpful style of speech, because the above style is completely unhelpful.
 * I was asked to look at this, precisely because it appears to play on JzG's weakness when it comes to certain kinds of thread. Specifically, when you interact with users with whom you have a long standing issue, it would help if you would do so with direct questions and statements, not rhetorical ones. If you have an issue with Guy, please use less rhetorical wording and assume good faith (if you can't with him, then you need to think carefully), or possibly even ask someone more neutral to handle it for you. Example:
 * And this is, I suppose, an entirely good faith attempt to deal with spam, and not an attempt to bypass community discussion and get the upper hand in an edit dispute? -  wrong .
 * Guy, I'm concerned that this might relate to a content dispute you were in or a "badsite" link removal with no real foundation, and the evidence seems a bit weak. Can we discuss? -  right .


 * Obviously the same would go for if Guy has an issue with you, and I was asked to comment, so I'm not taking sides. (NB, Guy, best not to meet rhetoric with rhetoric, sarcasm with sarcasm... you know?) FT2 (Talk 23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies to everybody, including JzG. I was out of line to jump in to something like this when I had prior baggage.  What I'd really like to see is some independent person with no baggage on any side look at the issue and make an independent judgment about it, but I'm not entirely sure how to accomplish this without stirring up drama like I tend to do. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I almost blacklisted this one myself several days ago, but when I looked at the origins of some of the other sermonaudio.com links, I noticed that there were innocent additions of this link as well as spammy ones. This may be better handled by using XLinkBot, which reverts link additions by IPs and brand new users. I thought it had already been added to XLinkBot's list but it wasn't, so I've gone ahead and done that now. Had I taken care of this earlier, you two wouldn't have had this argument, so my apologies to both of you (Dan and Guy).

I recommend removing sermonaudio.com from this list for now and seeing if XLinkBot does the trick; if so, established editors will still be able to add these links. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

there is currently a general block against using links to sermonaudio.com. this is affecting legitimate uses like in King James Only movement. i had to replace two long-standing citations with in order to save the page. — Chris Capoccia T&#8260;C 06:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are legitimate uses of a site where people just upload polemical sermons? News to me.  I actually checked the uses, several of the supposed citations were blatant WP:OR - using the text of a sermon to infer something which should only be sourced form reliable independent sources.  It's just like the endless YouTube links.  Honestly, I see absolutely no encyclopaedic merit in a site which leads with sermons by Ian Paisley, one of the worst bigots on the planet, and the catalyst here was someone wanting to link an interview of one young-earth creationist with another, an interview that includes absolutely no critical judgment at all.  If it was a journalist then fine, but hagiographic interviews are of no value to the encyclopaedia.  The copyright status of some of the work was also unclear to me, including full book content.  It's seems to em to be just conservapedia with audio. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * some people make polemic statements. if i want a source that so-and-so said such-and-such, why can't i cite an actual recording? just because you don't agree with what they said doesn't mean that they didn't say it.  — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 09:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Guy, I agree some of these very fundamentalist sermons can be intolerant and outside the mainstream of 95+% of contemporary Christianity, however I think they can be appropriate as links within articles about the preachers themselves. Strip away religion and you have an identical issue raised with the link from our Stormfront (website) article to the very racist stormfront.org. At this point, our discussion moves beyond the issue of spam to the broader question of whether links to intolerant material are appropriate within the articles of the people that produced it. In that case, I think this is a question that should be taken to a wider audience than the fewspam-nerds such as myself that watch this page. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I have been justly rebuked for my style of discourse earlier in this debate, and my views here are tainted by my prior conflicts with Guy, I do honestly believe that the spam blacklist, as a blunt instrument which suppresses all links to the sites on it, needs to be reserved in an absolutely strict manner to actual undisputed spam, meaning uncontroversial stuff of the "BuyViagraNow" variety. Anything else is getting on a slippery slope towards letting an admin's personal beliefs, preferences, emotions, and personality conflicts color the decisions on which sites get blacklisted, and thereby trump the editorial discussions on the specific articles involved.  Whenever any of the arguments to add or drop a blacklist entry pertain to politics (real world or Wikipolitics), religion, the banned status of a person connected with the site being linked to (who's not the person trying to insert the link), the intolerance or polemicalness of the site in question, etc., then the decision to blacklist the site needs intense scrutiny and independent eyes looking at it. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

cosmoetica.com
- This is the personal website of a minor writer named Dan Schneider. It has been spammed all over the project by a number of SPAs, including:

.

Since the spammer, whom I strongly suspect to be Mr. Schneider, frequently creates and abandons accounts, I haven't troubled to warn him. This also argues against blocks as a preventative measure. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ (fuller list of socks at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=235674930#Dan_Schneider) and raised at meta as well. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

=Proposed removals=

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)


 * 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)


 * . Spammed by the site owner in a deceitful way, some history of copyvios, virtually all content is also available elsewhere.  If there is a genuinely unique link which meets WP:RS being written by an identified authority, then whitelisting of that page may be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

per previous discussions etc. -- Herby talk thyme 11:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * 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:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”


 * Previous Suite101.com discussions
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133
 * Articles for deletion/Suite101.com
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2006-12
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-01
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-02
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-04
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-08
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-10
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-12
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2008-01
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2008-03
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This (more than) thoroughly addresses my concerns.  Cazort (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok - closed as then for archiving. -- Herby talk thyme 11:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

diplomaticsociety.org
Please list www.diplomaticsociety.org The Knights of St Gabriel is a international organization of the laity. International practice shows that persons and bodies other than states are often the subjects of international rights and duties, such developments are not inconsistent with the structure of international law. International legal personality, independent of specific of territorial sovereign status. OUR GLOBAL LINKS

All the Embassies; DIPLOMATIC ASSOCIATIONS (UK) Asociación de Diplomáticos Escritores (MEX) BON Web Embassies (FR) Congrosso Europeu Diplomatic Traffic (NGO's)(US) Diplomacia & Negocios (BR) DIRECTORIO CULTURAL (AR) Everything Catholic International Alliance of Catholic Knights (IR) Idealist.org NGO's (USA) International Organizations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (UK) USA MILITARY ARCHDIOCESE Catholic Church in Australia Catholic Canada (CA) US CATHOLIC WEB Catholic Search Engine CATHOLIC COMMUNITY CATHOLIC COMMUNITY FORUM CATHOLIC ONLINE CHRISTSITES Catholic's in the Holy Land, Al-Bushra. Catholic World Every Thing Catholic Official Nobility, Chivalry and Heraldry Orders, Decorations and Medals Indonesian Catholic Community Knights of St. Columba (UK) Knights of St Gabriel KNIGHTS OF THE SOUTHERN CROSS (AU) Knights of Saint Thomas More (BEL) Mande Bilaterial Organizations Hungarian NGO Directory (HU) NIGERIAN Catholics of St.Mulumba Núcleo de la Lealtad (SP) Political Science Resources: PRAGUE LEADER'S (CZ) Public Diplomacy,University of S.C. Annenberg School Europe's-Diplomatic Associations SOCIAL ACTION OFFICE/Peace Making NGO's (AU) Quo Vadis University of Birmingham (UK) UN Peace Keeping forces Worldwide NGO Directory (US) WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES / Human Rights WCC / Economy & Development WCC/Refugees and migrants   —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmbassadorW (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The link was blacklisted on meta: see . x42bn6 Talk Mess  02:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of spam, plenty of warnings -- I'm not surprised it was blacklisted:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008/07
 * User talk:71.112.105.60
 * nl:Overleg gebruiker:71.112.105.60
 * pt:Usuário Discussão:71.112.105.60


 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


 * The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.


 * Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.


 * Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting here, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * per A. B. Legitimate blacklist, and on meta anyway so this is the wrong venue. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

www.aerobaticteams.net
Hi soon some of the wikipedia editors use some of Logo pictures from my site of aerobatic teams. This means that my site is useful for wikipedia and must be removed from black list. I hope the you finaly open your eyes and check carrefully my site to ensure that its useful and no SPAMMMMMMM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.47.21 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm, no. Requesting user attempted to spam as recently as this month. MER-C 06:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

=Troubleshooting and problems=

RegExp problem on pt.wiki
Hi. Anyone knows what's the RegExp for the following: 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)
 * travian.pt/?uc=
 * travian.com.br/?uc=


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

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)
 * FYI, bad regexes are split out and ignored. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 17:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Thanks - fixed I hope. Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

=Discussion=

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * I would think one archive, seperate sections, like it is currently, 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * blog.myspace was blacklisted Per request by Jimbo. what page? --Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Blacklisting applies everywhere (including templates), its a blacklist. Next time remove the " http:// " or use  Tag.--Hu12 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Anontalk
It seems that the spammers are able to evade the entries on the page. See. Nan oha A's Yu ri    Talk, My master 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The link just goes to the current history page of Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. Could you provide a diff to a blacklisted link that was left?  Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Further information showed this to be the offending edit. Sadly plain text links cannot be caught by the blacklist so this is:  (if not really very satisfactory). -- SiobhanHansa 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * Depending on which blacklist was used, you should be able to find the reason at one of these:
 * meta:Spam blacklist/Log
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log
 * 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)

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)


 * 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.



-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

Our spam filter is now blocking spam in edit summaries
The spam filter now appears to block spam addresses in edit summaries even if the domain is not in the page text. I just learned this the hard way. It's probably a response to all the shock site spam recently left in edit summaries by vandals; some will crash browsers. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)