MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia


Article Images

    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 – 473340397 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    Instructions for proposed additions

    1. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.
    2. Please only use the basic URL – example.com , not https://www.example.com.
    3. Consider informing editors whose actions are discussed here.
    4. Please use the following templates:
    {{IP summary}} – to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
    {{IP summary|127.0.0.1}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    {{User summary}} – to report registered users suspected of spamming:
    {{User summary|Jimbo Wales}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    {{Link summary}} – to report spam domains:
    {{Link summary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    Do not include the "http[s]://www." portion of a URL inside this template, nor anything behind the domain name. Including this template will give tools to investigate the domain, and will result in COIBot refreshing the link-report. ('COIBot')
    {{BLRequestRegex}} - to suggest more complex regex filters beyond basic domain URLs
    {{BLRequestLink}} - to suggest specific links to be blacklisted
    Please provide diffs ( e.g. [[Special:Diff/99999999]] ) to show that there has been spamming!
    Completed requests should be marked with {{done}}, {{not done}}, or another appropriate indicator, and then archived.

    Doc_murad (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) User has been banned before for socketpuppetry. User posts both sites containing questionnaires with Google Adsense advertisements. User replaced relevant, non-profit resources with user's own site. User has been warned multiple times with final warning.

    Contains questionnaires with Google Adsense advertisement banners.

    Contains questionnaires with Google Adsense advertisement banners.

    uncomo.com

    This is a "howto" site which is adding editorial references to several articles. It is not an appropriate source as it's not written by expert but user generated content with clear commercial intentions. oulc it be added to blacklist and remove the more than 40 links they already placed?

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 04:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Two more with the same MO. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I recycled and updated the WPSPAM listing: See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 12:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous incidents
    Sites spammed
    Spammers

    MER-C 10:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated. MER-C 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    howflyhiphop.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

    Sockpuppet network originally added links to howflyhiphop.com mixtape articles inline on the pages of many various rappers. It's been added to Xlinkbot, but it doesn't seem to be effective at all. Now that the original accounts have been banned for sockpuppetry, various broad ranges of IPs have added links to a wide range of rapper articles, and it's rarely caught until I do a search. The closing admin at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thatlife/Archive recommended blacklisting if the spamming continued. [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Oct_1#howflyhiphop.com WikiProject spam link of initial report] Falcon8765 (TALK) 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 07:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Removals: [1], [2], [3], [4],

    91.189.64.131 (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) 193.128.83.244 (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) 192.131.85.207 (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) 192.131.85.210 (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)

    Two companies located in Tubber, Ireland. Moominder is a startup, ready to release its first article in 2012. BurrenSteel is a company that makes gates, fences and the like, but does not have proper website. Both companies use the article clearly for promotion. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated addition of this clothing retailer to a number of articles over the past three months. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1, 2, 3
    4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
    13, 14
    15, 16, 17
    18, 19, 20

    Twenty entries since August. Jojalozzo 22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest adding "dinsdoc.com" to the blacklist.

    The domain "Dinsdoc.com" apparently used to have online copies of old books, but has now become a spam link. Example, http://www.dinsdoc.com/niebuhr-1-30.htm

    It seems any URL at that domain just leads to ads.

    That was reported on ANI [5]. I removed the link from around 65 articles (most here) - it was just a convenience-link, so I was able to remove them without it impacting on verifiability.

    As of now, the link is not used in article space [6]

    Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Excessive linking from The Fresh Beat Band. Please blacklist this link. --Il223334234 (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    traditio.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

    • This site is little more than a glorified blog written by a person claiming to be a Catholic priest. The views are sedevacantist in nature (deny papal authority) and are antisemitic and borderline racist in some instances. While it may make interesting source material for sedevacantist artiles and the like, it should not be used as a source on anything Catholic. True sedevacantist type articles have plenty of verifiable source material and don't need the rantings of a suppossed, yet anonymous priest.
    • Beyond that, the owner of the site has published a document pointing out who he thinks is the real-life inspiration behind characters in a novel based on a corrupt Vatican. The author of this document even claims it is a "possible key relating the fictional names used in Windswept House to the real persons involved". The user below and others in the past have been using this as a source on biographies of Catholic Bishops, Cardinals, etc. This appears to be a serious BLP violation.
    • The following IP is the most recent person to add these "sources".

    90.197.149.8 (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)

    Spammers

    MER-C 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sites spammed
    Related domains
    Spammers

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 05:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    itstheinsurance.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 --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    360eire.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 was added by sockpuppet-master, 2 sockpuppets, some innocent bystanders and loads of IPs. My research was limited mainly to 2011. There are another 50/60 links that I did not look at, but I do not think it will change anything to the pattern.

    Added or readded www.360eire.com on:

    1. Slieve League: 16-9-2010 [10]
    2. Slieve League: 5-7-2010 [11]
    3. Drombeg stone circle: 14-7-2010 [12]
    4. Skellig Michael: 30-12-2011 [13]
    5. English Market: 11-5-2011 [14]
    6. Kilkee: 13-7-2010 [15]
    7. Dysert O'Dea Monastery: 13-7-2010 [16]
    8. Lake Isle of Innisfree: 10-10-2011 [17]
    9. Lake Isle of Innisfree: 11-9-2010 [18]
    10. Lake Isle of Innisfree: 6-7-2010 [19]
    11. Kylemore Abbey: 6-7-2010 [20]

    Added or readded www.360eire.com on:

    1. Roscommon: 31-12-2011 [21]
    2. Slieve League: 31-12-2011 [22]
    3. Lough Hyne: 30-12-2011 [23]
    4. Inniskeen: 30-12-2011 [24]
    5. Tullyhogue Fort: 30-1202011 [25]
    6. Muff, County Donegal: 30-12-2011 [26]
    7. Drombeg stone circle: 30-12-2011 [27]
    8. Saul, County Down: 30-12-2011 [28]
    9. Gougane Barra: 30-11-2011 [29]
    10. Hook Head: 30-12-2011 [30]
    11. Galway: 30-12-2011 [31]
    12. Farmleigh:30-12-2011 [32]
    13. Hook Lighthouse: 30-12-2011 [33]
    14. Loughcrew: 30-12-2011 [34]
    15. Marlfield, Clonmel: 30-12-2011 [35]
    16. Monasterboice: 30-12-2011 [36]
    17. Claregalway: 30-12-2011 [37]
    18. Glasnevin Cemetery: 30-12-2011 [38]
    19. Loughrea: 30-12-2011 [39]
    20. Corlea Trackway: 31-12-2011 [40]

    Added or readded www.360eire.com on:

    1. Herbert Park: 31-12-2011 [41]
    2. Moyry Castle: 31-12-2011 [42]
    3. Iveagh Gardens: 31-12-2011 [43]
    4. Bective Abbey: 30-12-2011 [44]
    5. Cú Chulainn: 30-12-2011 [45]
    6. Christy Ring: 30-12-2011 [46]

    All following IP's added or readded www.360eire.com.

    1. Slieve League: 31-12-2011 [47]
    2. Skellig Michael: 30-12-2011 [48]
    3. Féile an Phobail: 30-12-2011 [49] (Confirmed as belonging to Dialin: [50])
    4. Holycross: 30-12-2011 [51]
    5. Jonesborough, County Armagh: 30-12-2011 [52]
    6. Howth Head: 30-12-2011 [53]
    7. Clare Glens: 30-12-2011 [54]
    8. Hill of Tara: 30-12-2011 [55]
    9. Glendalough: 30-12-2011 [56]
    10. Easky: 30-12-2011 [57]
    11. Dún Laoghaire: 30-12-2011 [58]
    12. St Stephen's Green: 30-12-2011 [59]
    13. English Market: 30-12-2011 [60]
    1. Torc Waterfall: 20-12-2011 [61]
    1. Ross Castle: 15-12-2011 [62]
    1. Muckross House: 14-12-2011 [63]
    1. Roscommon: 4-12-2010 [64]
    1. Inverin: 28-11-2011 [65]
    1. Carlow: 24-11-2011 [66]
    1. Iveragh Peninsula: 21-11-2011 [67]
    1. Jonesborough, County Armagh: 13-11-2011 [68]
    1. Bective Abbey: 4-11-2011 [69]
    1. Downpatrick: 28-10-2011 [70]
    1. Corlea Trackway: 26-10-2011 [71]
    2. Lough Gowna: 1-11-2011 [72]
    1. Dysert O'Dea Monastery: 24-10-2011 [73]
    1. Féile an Phobail: 21-10-2011 [74]
    1. Transatlantic flight of Alcock and Brown: 11-10-2011 [75]
    1. Moyry Castle: 25-7-2011 [76]
    1. Monasterboice: 20-7-2011 [77]
    1. Dún Laoghaire: 1-7-2011 [78]
    1. Hook Lighthouse: 21-6-2011 [79]]
    1. Herbert Park: 12-6-2011 [80]
    1. Iveagh Gardens: 9-6-2011]] [81]
    1. St Stephen's Green: 3-6-2011 [82]
    1. Howth Head: 1-6-2011 [83]
    1. Glasnevin Cemetery: 26-5-2011 [84]
    1. Lough Derg (Ulster): 24-5-2011 [85]
    1. Dunree: 24-5-2011 [86]
    1. Rossnowlagh: 22-5-2011 [87]
    1. Garden of Remembrance (Dublin): 18-5-2011 [88]
    1. Saul, County Down: 16-5-2011 [89]
    1. Glencolmcille: 14-5-2011 [90]
    1. English Market: 10-5-2011 [91]
    1. Broadstone, Dublin: 10-5-2011 [92]
    1. Slieve League: 13-4-2011 [93]
    1. Sculpture in the Parklands: 11-4-2011 [94]
    1. Glendalough: 7-4-2011 [95]
    1. Beaghmore: 28-3-2011 [96]
    1. Smithfield, Dublin: 3-3-2011 [97]
    1. Lough Hyne: 26-2-2011 [98]
    1. Tullyhogue Fort: 25-2-2011 [99]
    1. Holycross: 21-2-2011 [100]
    1. Cnoc Meadha: 20-2-2011 [101]
    1. Claregalway: 19-2-2011 [102]
    1. Cornamona: 17-2-2011 [103]
    1. Skreen: 14-2-2011 [104]
    1. Easky: 11-2-2011 [105]
    1. Brian Boru: 4-2-2011 [106] (Confirmed as belonging to Dialin: [107])
    1. Hook Head: 1-2-2011 [108]]
    1. Gougane Barra: 20-1-2011 [109]]
    1. Ballybeg Priory: 19-1-2011 [110]
    1. Skellig Michael: 18-1-2011 [111]
    1. Loughcrew: 11-1-2011 [112]
    1. Hill of Tara: 10-1-2011 [113]
    1. Galway: 6-1-2011 [114]]
    2. Béal na mBláth: 6-1-2011 [115]]
    1. The Burren: 28-12-2010 [116]
    1. Galway Races: 30-11-2010 [117]
    1. Moone: 26-11-2010 [118]
    2. Brownshill Dolmen: 26-11-2010 [119]
    1. Loughrea: 28-11-2010 [120]
    1. Inniskeen: 29-11-2010 [121]
    1. Cú Chulainn:30-12-2010 [122]
    1. Drombeg stone circle: 22-11-2010 [123]
    2. Christy Ring: 22-11-2010 [124]
    1. Muff, County Donegal: 18-11-2010 [125]
    1. Clare Glens: 19-10-2010 [126]
    1. Lake Isle of Innisfree: 16-9-2010 [127]

    I had warned Dialinn (talk · contribs) to stop pushing the website www.360eire.com and not to use multiple identities. See here: User talk:Night of the Big Wind#360view. He promised to stop pushing, but today (=31-12-2011) another identity showed up and went on with pushing.

    The almost exclusive use of IP's (of several networks) and sockpuppets, makes it clear that this is a pushing campaign, not an enthousiast promoting his own website. Night of the Big Wind talk 08:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I was coming here to make the exact same request. This is clearly spam, and I support blacklisting. MER-C 10:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom111 Born111 (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) opendata.socrata.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

    This website seems to be used for user-provided content; the user in question has been linking to pirated versions of Beatles albums there diff1 diff2, and has now posted a long but not very coherent attack at Jimbo's talk page on unnamed editor(s) as a "bad man" who "makes lobby" for EMI (copyright holders) and Apple Corps., or so I deduce (English is not Tom111's first language, possibly not even his/her second or third). Their theory is that pirated recordings are okay, because they are for "education and culture (purposes)" knowledge. While I was typing this, User:MuZemike blocked Tom111 as a sockpuppet of User:Crazy1980, so presumably this is not the only time spamlinks to this site have been posted. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel that is going to help. However, he has used different sites to continue in said spamming, judging from the recent IPs and socks he has used. --MuZemike 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Object - seems to have plenty of legitimate uses, although I can't say one way or the other whether it is used legimiately much. Indeed, it even has an article here! It may be an idea to write an edit filter and monitor what it is used for in practice, at least for a couple of months. Egg Centric 21:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd tend to agree with Egg Centric; not seeing the link inappropriately used other than the banned sockpuppet's attempts. If we block socrata, he'll just find another unblocked place to post it. His edits are easy enough to spot; best to just block him on site and move on. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeatedly added to Batch file. Personal blog that probably won't be helpful to the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Useless URLs--GrapedApe (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    celebritydaily.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 [128],[129],[130],[131]
    fandaily.info: 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 [132],[133],[134],[135],[136],[137],[138]

    rockpaperphoto.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

    Multiply spammed by SPA Ybr.sachin on 13 January 2012 (example) and by 202.53.15.132 on 16 January 2012 (example).

    Warnings had no effect on the SPA. This is a humdrum retailer. Hard to imagine that linking an article to it could increase the value of that article to the reader. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Now spammed by another IP. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And by SPA Rppwiki. -- Hoary (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Spammer is using socks.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated addition contrary to clear consensus, spamming use on many pages (most thankfully removed now) [139], [140], [141] (which has a summary saying no one had a "new" objection!) [142], [143], [144], and innumerable inclusions on the talk page. Also used for literally hundreds of mainly deleted additions of "frothy mixture." The net result, however, is "spam." Collect (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    the-discount-books.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 As I recall we recently unblocked Blogspot. Which is a good thing. Having a user who uses it to spam A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and Manorama Yearbook (repeatedly if you check their contribs) is not such a good thing. Since it's clear that this user only recently started using this IP, and since I can imagine no reasonable use for this particular blog, it seems sensible to blacklist it to prevent future bad behavior. --Quintucket (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    Previous incidents
    Sites spammed
    • redirects to:
    • blacklisted locally
    Spammers

    See WikiProject Spam report for the rest. MER-C 05:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. I updated the regex to include the blogspot link and optional hyphen. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved

    FYI MER-C (talk · contribs) suggested \bswagbucks\.com[/?], but I don't want to edit the page myself... might break something :P CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That should work. Another might be \bswagbucks.com[/?]\w+\b to require something behind the ? or the /. Has there been a problem with spamming of these referral links? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call it a spam problem, but there has been history of abuse on the article I linked above, abuse that is likely to continue given the nature of the website. Is there a better solution other than blacklisting? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    An alternate solution is the User:XLinkBot revertlist. That's a bot that automatically removes links when they are added, but doesn't override editors who revert the bot. You decide.... you may as well get your feet wet at some point and wade into this list or that list. Adding either regex above won't break anything. Just be sure to log what you do as instructed at the top of the blacklist or XLinkBot page. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I plus Added to the blacklist and logged it. Thanks! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    Use this section to request that a URL be unlisted. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.

    Requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined. Otherwise, follow these steps to post a properly-formatted request:

    • Familiarize yourself with the reasons why a site was blacklisted. Look at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log to see who blacklisted the link and when, and the reason given for blacklisting.
    • At the beginning of your request, include the domain in a {{link summary}} template (remove the http:// and www from the domain). This provides tools to find more information on the domain. For example, * {{Link summary|example.com}} results in:
    • When previewing your post with an included {{link summary}}, you will find links to a COIBot-report ('COIBot'), linksearches on en ('Linksearch en'), and tracked discussions ('tracked' and 'advanced'). If the log did not provide sufficient information on why a link was blacklisted, these links often yield more information.
    • Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia.
    • Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore.
      • Note that the bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped.

    Providing this information often helps in a faster handling of the request.

    Once you have added your request, please check back here from time to time to get the outcome or to answer any additional questions. We will not email you or otherwise notify you about your request, and if no answer is received to a question, the request will be considered abandoned.

    Administrators: Completed requests should be marked with {{done}}, {{not done}}, or another appropriate indicator, then archived.

    I propose removing this from the blacklist. I am surprised it is even on there. It is a reputable news site with original and promotional articles, some of which is needed for citation purposes. For example Nicola Peltz's birthday is published on on its actor's profile pages. — Hasdi Bravo • 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist. That site is not blacklisted on the English Wikipedia. It is blacklisted globally on all Wiki projects.
    Also, Nicola Peltz's birthday is already sourced elsewhere; there is no need to add a link to a blacklisted site when alternate sources exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a perennially declined request at Meta. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find it on the list. I could, amusingly enough, find a comment by you saying that it should be on that list though - looks like it still needs to be ! Egg Centric 21:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you not find it on the meta blacklist? It's plain as can be. You're not using Safari by any chance, are you? (Safari's page search function is broken.) ~Amatulić (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    fisheaters.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

    I am again proposing that Fisheaters.com be removed from the Spam Blacklist. It is not a spam website; it is not-for-profit, informational and well-kept. There is information on it in encyclopedic form about Catholicism and it is neither a blog nor a discussion forum, although the WEBSITE has blog and forum, it is primarily an encyclopedia. The fact that extremely conservative Jewish and Protestant websites (some of which find themselves outside the realm of orthodoxy in their respective religions) are not blacklisted, yet this website is CONSTANTLY denied is unfair. It is a great website and a better reference than many other Catholic websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeformv (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is recurring, Madeformv, and you have not addressed the concerns properly, especially that it was "thorougly abused by its owner" (on meta it states: "It was thoroughly abused by its owner, represents a fringe POV, is anonymously run, has no documented editorial board or review procedure, and is in sundry ways not a reliable source. The domain offers no utility to offset the past problems).
    (and a previous deferral to meta on en.wikipedia.org)
    It is not listed here, it is listed on meta.wikipedia.org, asking for de-listing here is futile, it can not be done by admins on en.wikipedia.org. I do not think that requests by siteowners after such "thorough(ly) abuse(d) by owner" will (nor should) be met with approval (on the other hand, if uninvolved, established editors can convince Wikipedia of the use of this site, the story may change). Do note, that the abuse of Wikipedia for the sole reason of being linked and for the purpose of promoting the site is the very definition of spam, whatever the content of the target site is. Anyway,  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    Dear Sirs;

    I saw our site on this wikipedia report:

    https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/LinkReports/servifans.com

    I don't know th reason of this situation but I suppose anybody from Marketing Dpt. was doing this actions not valid under Wikipedia rules.

    I apologise for all the inconvenience and I request to be unlisted from any Wikipedia report. Also, I take actions inside the web for don't repeat this situation again.

    Your sincerely, Joaquin Masas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.143.245 (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist. Servifans.com is not blacklisted here on Wikipedia, it is blacklisted globally. However, it is unlikely that a request for unlisting on Meta will be successful. Generally sites are not removed from the blacklist at the request of someone with a clear conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor makes such a request, then it will be considered. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear user; Thank you for your answer. I would really appreciate if you can help us to a high-volume editor make a request to removed from any blacklist.

    We are people from tourism industry. We are not involved in wikipedia or world wide web rules.

    I apologize for all inconvenience again.

    Your sincerely, Kim Masas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.143.245 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined We don't need tourism advertising sites on Wikipedia, period. The "high volume editor" part meant "if a high-volume editor suggests the link independently, not on your behalf." OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Sirs;

    Thank you for your answer. So how we can repair this situation?.

    Your sincerely, Kim Masas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.143.245 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You cannot repair this situation. You must live with the consequences of past actions.
    Furthermore, no trusted contributor has come forth to offer a reason why a link to servifans.com would have any editorial value on Wikipedia. This would be the only valid reason to remove it from the blacklist. If a blacklisted site has no value to Wiki projects, there is no reason to remove it from the blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    wikiwealth.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

    Dear Wikipedia Admins,

    I noticed that www.wikiwealth.com is blacklisted. WikiWealth.com is a collaborative research wiki that produces research reports for stocks, Exchange-traded fund (ETFs), mutual funds, currencies, and commodities. WikiWealth.com is powered by Wikidot and does not spam anyone. So I hope Wikipedia admins will remove it from the blacklist.

    Best regards, Artimonier (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd - this is in the blacklist, but I see no log entry.
    In any case, the claim "does not spam anyone" is false; see the COIbot report which clearly shows someone apparently affiliated with the site mass-spamming Wikipedia. Please explain for what purpose should this be removed from the blacklist? If it's for the same purpose as the original spammer, I'm inclined to deny this request. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined for lack of response. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    sermonaudio.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

    Folks,

    While the domain sermonaudio.com is blacklisted, it is not listed in the log. SermonAudio is a professionally run web service hosting audio for church sermons and teaching. I have been a member for some years and have never seen the site create (or be used for) spam. While this is my first report of a proposed removal, I don't see any obvious reason in the COIBot report to suggest why it's been blacklisted. If there's something obvious to an Admin, I'll look forward to your response and clarification here, to help me better understand the mechanism.

    FWIW, my intention to link to it is simply to link to a page showing the messages for a particular church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carehart (talk • contribs)

    The web site at sermonaudio.com was being inserted into our Excommunication article as recently as last November: [145] and [146]. Since these additions were made by an IP-hopping editor from the 75.* range you can form your own judgment as to whether they were in good faith. See article history for several previous attempts, all of which were reverted by the regular editors. I decided to apply semiprotection to prevent further insertions. An editor at User talk:75.137.110.254 was blocked in 2008 for repeatedly inserting the link.
    The following template can be used to track other uses of sermonaudio.com:
    sermonaudio.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 .
    I would not be in favor of undoing the blacklisting. EdJohnston (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. The missing log entry is an oversight. Had it been logged, it would likely list Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008_Archive Sep 1#sermonaudio.com as evidence. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    navymutual.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

    Hello- This domain was blacklisted in March 2008, no reason given that I can find. The domain is the website of a life insurance company, Navy Mutual Aid Association, and the purpose of delisting would be to place the company URL in the infobox.

    Interesting, user NMAA is requesting a link to NMAA for use in the article NMAA, that is just expanded by user NMAA. Are you sure there is no conflict of interest? Night of the Big Wind talk 23:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined with prejudice. All the evidence is given at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive May 1#User page spammer2 and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Taddeus45. This was part of a massive spam run by an apparent SEO spammer who creates countless sockpuppet accounts for the purpose of spamming Wikipedia.
    If you want to white-list a specific page on that site for use in an article about the company,  Defer to Whitelist. But it's unlikely that a request by an editor with a conflict of interest will be taken seriously. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If possible, please clarify what evidence is pointed out in the first link (2008), as all I see is the domain. If inclusion in a list from 2008 itself is "evidence," I'm not sure how to refute that. There is no mention of the domain the second link (Taddeus45).
    The company domain is not a spamming domain, and it does not employ SEO spamming. How it got listed as such almost four years ago, I don't know. I am indeed an editor for the company. That seems to invalidate an attempt at correction of the status out of hand, but I am not sure of what other means I should have used. My only intent is to properly link the company URL on its wiki page, the same as just about any other company. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMAA (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was spammed by an SEO spammer. That's what the first link shows. The second link shows that the person who spammed the domain is a sockpuppet account (i.e. someone who creates multiple accounts for abusive purposes).
    I already responded,  Defer to Whitelist. That is the venue for white-listing specific pages for use in an article about the subject. You won't be able to white-list the entire domain, but a full, specific URL would be feasible. I recommend navymutual.org/About-us/ as the most appropriate link.
    If you like, I can save you the trouble of posting a request there, and white-list that specific URL for use in the Navy Mutual Aid Association article. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate that, thank you. NMAA (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    http://navymutual\.org/About-us/ is now whitelisted. Use the link exactly as shown in this reply, with the trailing slash and uppercase A. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    uncensoredinterview.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

    I've been helping to edit the article for the band Frightened Rabbit, and given their lack of widespread popularity, it can be very hard to find an adequate citation if one is blocked. A story that the band describes was important to their start, and it needs to be said. Without uncensoredinterviews.com being available for me to use as a citation, I don't have the ability use the bit. Now, I'm probably wrong as to the customs for putting a new entry into Wikipedia, but I was fairly sure that most things need citations. I assure you that this site isn't spam (or so I hope), it contains quite a bit of valuable information about less popular bands, and if it is possible, could this site be removed from the list, or at least an explanation of why it was put on it in the first place? The evacipated (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done (1) Site was spammed by multiple accounts over a two year period until it was blacklisted. (2) Frightened Rabbit has plenty of references, so it's not as obscure as you suggest. If there is a single specific interview you feel contains information not otherwise existing in the current refs, you can propose whitelisting it at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will. Thanks for looking at my proposal though. The evacipated (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    This section is to report problems with the blacklist. Old entries are archived

    I just found a copyvio with the original source being on flixya.com, which is on the blacklist. It took me about five minutes to be able to file an FFD I should have been able to do in 5 seconds because I had to find some way to indicate where the image was copied from without linking to the blacklisted site and without using URL shorteners to do so, because they're also on the blacklist. There should be some way (maybe a sysop-only thing or page-specific thing) to allow the full url to be represented, just not linked. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    <nowiki> or leaving out the http:// both serve the purpose you describe. MER-C 09:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They do? That seems a little clunky, but I guess it works. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I don't know how to read the blacklist files, but I couldn't figure out why southpacific.org is being rejected. Could someone point me to the relevant line? Fnordware (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi!
    See [147]. -- seth (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So I shouldn't expect to see it here or here? Sorry, I'm such a noob. Fnordware (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's listed at m:Spam blacklist, search for\bsouthpacific\.org. MER-C 10:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, I am blind. Or actually it turns out that Safari's find function doesn't work as I expect, at least on that page. Might be a bug. Thanks! Fnordware (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'm trying to link a YouTube video and am being thwarted by a spam filter notice. (Yes, I know YouTube generally isn't useful but I think that it is in this particular instance.) Chrome's find function isn't helping me find the link on either blacklist, so I'm not sure if this is working as intended or not. The particular link is http://youtu.be/KJhfgp-SryY. Crypticfirefly (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's working as intended; http://youtube.com/watch?v=KJhfgp-SryY should link to the video you want. MER-C 05:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get it. If you hit the "share" button to pull up the link YouTube wants you to use for that video, it gives http://youtu.be/KJhfgp-SryY. Why does one work and not the other? And why can't I find that documented anywhere? Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See youtu.be above (same issue). Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would you use the 'share' - you can just copy the url from the browser? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you not? Sometimes web services change the way their database works and URLs in the address bar are not necessarily always static (though for the moment they seem to be on YouTube) and that can change. Furthermore, sometimes the URL in the browser address is longer then it needs to be because it may have been pulled from search results. If a website operator tells me they want me to use a certain URL as a static link when sharing content, I tend to follow their instructions both as a matter of politeness (it may make it easier for them to track where content is coming from or something) and in the hope that it is less likely that the link will break later. If Wikipedia has some reason for blocking the URLs YouTube recommends that people use it should be documented. Crypticfirefly (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw the comment Johnuniq mentioned above. My position stands. "youtu.be" is part of YouTube's website, it isn't a redirect. The explanation up there is silly, and those insisting on it have a responsibility to make sure that the workaround is posted prominently so people can find it.Crypticfirefly (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In the article Harry's Place there is one line which I wish to remove from the section Controversy:

    [http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-de-zionification-now.html], because it is an incomplete reference which does not seem to belong to any particular piece of text; its presence causes a red error message on the page, and also puts the page into Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting.

    However, on editing to remove that one line, and attempting to save, my edit is rejected because of a spam filter notice "because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. ... The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://www.hurryupharry.org ". What puzzles me is that the edit is being rejected because I'm apparently adding this blacklisted site, which is plainly untrue. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    The problem is the site:

    See

    Which is blacklisted here on Wikipedia due to serial vandal abuse. Interesting problem, I think that the links now used in the article would need to be whitelisted before that page can be repaired, as there may be a risk of ongoing abuse with the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    .. Without thinking about the blacklisting itself: reading the section, it is sourced to the site itself. Maybe for a controversy section on a subject, all should be independently sourced? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    buddyrich.cjb.net

    I'm not sure why this has been blacklisted but I suspect someone who edits the Buddy Rich page is not being objective in their decision. My site was listed on Wikipedia years ago before the official site even existed but then it was suddenly taken off. I've submitted it a few times over the years but it keeps getting taken off. I've never tried to add the site for years until today but found my url was blacklisted. I've managed to add the site using a different url but I've got a feeling that it will be removed. The Official Buddy Rich site links to me so I don't see what the problem is. Please could someone have a look at this for me. Thanks.

    Logging / COIBot Instr

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins

    Quick reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.

    Discussion

    This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are archived

    Due to the format of this this page and how we archive, most archive bots cannot function here. However I just took a few minutes and wrote a custom script that should do it for us. It makes one change to convert {{LinkSummaryLive}} to {{LinkSummary}} in order to bypass any spam filter issues. (I may need to adjust it some more). There are two variables that can be configured: stale conversations, and ones tagged with templates indicating defer/done/not done ect. Right now my thoughts would be to set stale conversations to 30 days, and those tagged to 15. Thoughts? ΔT The only constant 05:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To keep this page clear, I'd like to see automated archiving - though I also like the thing we do on the whitelist: we have the open requests, which get either granted or denied, they then get moved to an appropriate section (IMHO, that could be after 24 hours), and later archived (which would be nice after say, 1-2 weeks, bit depending on size). At least they are then quick out of the 'open' area, which makes it easier to focus on what needs 'quick' attention, while still having the posts handy for some time if the problem expands to other areas, or if there are quick de-listing requests.
    I would also suggest that both 'live' links get converted (and the {{LinkSummaryLive}} converted to {{LinkSummary}}) when moving the requests.
    All in all, yes, please! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to create the the new sections I can tweak the code. I would request that each "section" retain the primary '=' section level, so that we are not mixing section levels, but it would be trivial to adjust my archive code. Just let me know the time periods, and I could have the code operational in less than 24 hours, and then would go ahead with the BRFA process. ΔT The only constant 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To the original question ... what is the bot name? Has it already been approved, or is it pending approval? For time duration, I think we can start it with 45 days stale, and tighten it up later if needed. I would prefer to have longer than needed as the starting point and adjust down, rather than too short and adjusting up. My only other concern is ensuring there's an easy to access emergency off switch (possibly linked from the header for this page). --- Barek (talk) - 18:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not filed for approval yet, I wanted to flush the idea out, find issues, get those addressed, before ever going to the BRFA process. As for the shutoff, that should be trivial, just a matter of configuring a wiki page. ΔT The only constant 18:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Before proceeding any further, you may want to read Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links, which is proposing some changes to where these requests are submitted, as well as how the requests on the page are structured. --- Barek (talk) - 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a question at RSN about a possible malware site. Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Please_check_the_source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ran the url through a few malware/threat detectors, seems its ok.
    Here are a few scanner tools that could be usefull.
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    livejasmin.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 This website is sex-related social networking site, it may contain malware and considered dangerous and spam. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is one the most visited web sites in the world, according to the LiveJasmin article. I hardly think they need to resort to malware, nor would they need to spam Wikipedia although individuals who get paid through that site might do so. However, I see no evidence of abuse, just a few links in user space plus the link in the main article. The site is mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/livewebsexxx.com a small number of times. Maybe this is a good addition for XLinkBot. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am on this talk page, looking for another site that I was recently blocked from using, when I happened to come across the link you are discussing here. I usually encounter this site as an annoying popup. Despite added the url to my list of restricted sites and blocked cookies list, it continues to be a nuisance. I would consider it a low-level security threat in itself, however, advertisers who use that site (or any similar site for that matter) often pose a much higher security threat to computers, thereby raising the threat level of the site in question. I firmly suggest it be blocked and permanently blacklisted.
    Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    http: //indonesia.travel/

    SatuSuro 04:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Report filed here. If continued spamming occures further action could be considered.--Hu12 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You are invited to contribute at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 3#Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam4im notices - Fayenatic (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Came across this case, See WikiProject Spam report, where an annon was adding his site as an IP, rather than the two (semmingly) legitimate urls (which redirect)... In risk of Stuffing beans up my nose, blocking IP's as urls would be of significant help when it comes to pre blocked urls, in cases of curcumventing the BL. Its worth noting that both en.wikibooks.org and en.wikiversity.org have these types of links blocked globaly with regex \d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}. Thoughts on blocking IP's as URL's on en.wikipedia.org would be appreciated.--Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    At first I thought this is a good idea but after thinking about it, I'm not so sure. Such a block may result in a lot of false hits. I know of many legitimate sites that exist on shared hosting servers, meaning that several unrelated sites with different owners may have the same IP address. Furthermore, domain names can easily be transferred from one hosting provider to another, running the risk of whack-a-mole IP blacklisting if a site owner transfers a domain to a different IP address. In that sense it would seem more effective to blacklist domains rather than IP addresses. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mis-understand what Hu12 is suggesting. We are not blocking specific IPs but rather forcing users to specify domain names instead of using URLs. AKA http://208.80.152.2 would not be allowed, while http://en.wikipedia.org would be. Both URLs point to the same place. ΔT The only constant 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't there some sites which wouldn't be accessible with a domain name? –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Very very very few sites are only accessable via IP addresses, and for those we have the whitelist. ΔT The only constant 16:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. I should learn not to attempt intelligent conversation on only 3 hours of sleep. Somehow, don't ask me why, I had the thought stuck in my head that Hu12 proposed to block any site corresponding to a particular IP address. Yes, I know that isn't how the blacklist works. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have encountered a site somewhere that has affected my system with a sort of virus. You can see in this edit where I tried to remove a spam link, but it remained resilient and effectively added itself back into the article. The sites requested to be blacklisted are shown above I say blacklist them for their combative means of creeping into the encyclopedia. If they were legit, they wouldn't use a backdoor trying to enter. My76Strat (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand the above. The editing history you reference shows that you moved one of the two pixeltrack links to somewhere else. Did you try to remove both? The mundomedia link doesn't show up at all in that diff, and doesn't appear to have any history on Wikipedia. The pixeltrack link does have some history although it doesn't exist in article space at the moment. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh man, I just tested that link you were trying to remove. Bad, bad. I'm convinced you had an infection. Into the blacklist it goes, in case any other legitimate users get infected. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This morning I'm getting a warning that my edits cannot be saved because books.google.com has been blacklisted. I haven't found a discussion on this. I would appreciate more information on this. -- Donald Albury 11:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Testing....book on editing from google books. Hmmm...I'm able to save links without it popping up as being blacklisted.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So I tried again, and get "The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://www.google.com/url?". I'm seeing this in User:Donald Albury/Shell ring. If I nowiki the two books.google.com links, I can save the page. -- Donald Albury 12:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bizarre...I was able to save the link with no problems in both a shortened form and the full url. Perplexed...
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    google.com/url? is deliberately blacklisted because the URL snippet can be used to circumvent the spam blacklist. The real url is http://www.nps.gov/seac/course-of-study/FLvsSCrings.doc ; Google changed it because they want to track you. MER-C 12:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a little clearer, now. The problem is this link, www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CHMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nps.gov%2Fseac%2Fcourse-of-study%2FFLvsSCrings.doc&ei=XN3ITuSFGdSDtgealJWuDA&usg=AFQjCNEbwf-zAB0pHWLjkqnhMoNr1CvJvA&sig2=c7UUJAEoBjpPUtN6VT_LPw, which automatically downloads a doc file. I trust the ultimate source, which the U.S. National Park Service, but it is a good idea to block such files. I had tried earlier to link directly to the NPS, but been bounced back to the above link. I think I have it sorted now. Thanks for the response. -- Donald Albury 12:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to avoid such problems in the future and you use Firefox, you can install this extension. MER-C 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and to also prevent flash cookies from being used to track you there is Better Privacy.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    56casino is a casino guide website which supply different casino games websites for people. There are lots of various kinds of casino websites with detailed introduction and catagory of casino games,it's a little like the casinocity. Today, I tried to add our website on the casino discuss page on WIKI but I have been informed that our website is in blacklist, I guessed the reason is that in July 2010 we pubilished an article about 56casino on WIKI,and we had been informed that our account was blocked for violates Wikinews's username policy. At the same time, our website was blocked . We're willing to solve this problem if there is some way to solve it! Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidney.lohn (talk • contribs)

    You're calling this an article?  Denied. The site was blacklisted because it was one of many abused by multiple accounts over many wikis. We do not delist sites at the request of site owners or other affiliated people. Furthermore, this isn't listed here; you want m:Talk:Spam blacklist, however any requests there are highly likely to be denied for the same reasons. MER-C 10:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]