Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Proposed additions

Fallingrain.com

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 The site is 15 years out of date and I've seen it used by lesser informed individuals to reference articles which is a major threat to reliability.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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the site already in XLinkBot? That seems like the appropriate way to warn editors that the site contains unreliable data when they try to add it, while still allowing editorial discretion. While the RfC showed that unreliability can be a factor in blacklisting, there was little support for blacklisting merely unreliable sites absent actual spamming. Youtube is a similar unreliable site, and IIRC it's in XLinkBot, not the blacklist. Let me see: [1] Gigs (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in support of the move to remove the site from the whitelist - my understanding is it relies rather heavily on an old list which has got some circulation on the net already (the original version of Mapquest circa 1999 was based on it for non-US mapping, for instance, but more recent versions use their own mapping which is almost exactly accurate). The Fallingrain map of my own city contains towns which have never existed, misspellings/mislocations of places which do exist, a suburban boundary that is around 40 years out of date and a number of key features missing. Orderinchaos 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisting this site solely because it's an unreliable source is not supported by larger consensus. While the recent RfC did indicate that reliability can be a factor in blacklisting, there was also near universal consensus against using it as a sole factor. Since the addition of these links were not for spam purposes (but rather added in good faith), I see no justification for blacklisting this site. That said, if the data truly is unreliable, I would not be opposed to systematic removal of the site as a reference, and its addition to XLinkBot. Gigs (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that editors add these link and even use its data in good faith believing it to be reliable source. The HUGE problem is that experienced geo editors on here are fully aware of its pitfalls and know that there are thousands of articles containing false data from this site. If you do not thinkin this is concerning I seriously question you as a wikipedian. We should not tolerate inaccurate articles. Even external links to this site presents false data to our readers. If we irresponsibility continue to ignore this problem and fail to recognise it as a bad source, lesser informed individuals will continue to generate many more false articles like Subego. Before you know it we'll have 20,000 articles using referenced data to falling rain and the accuracy of geo articles will continue to degrade. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from requested removals to requested additions. I am minded to grant this request, but as there is some opposition, a consensus is necessary. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference link for easier review:
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From several years' experience with this and the meta blacklist, I've seen that blacklisting domains that are widely used in good faith by regular editors results in massive multi-day disputes spread over multiple noticeboards. Furthermore, it's nice to talk about writing a script to remove simple links from an "external links" section, but what about in-line references? I've seen attempts to do that with scripts that have turned into real messes, both mechanically and editorially. If you remove the reference, do you remove the assertion it supports? Or do you find a new ref? Or do you just leave a {{fact}} tag? Expect an article-by-article debate over in-line refs.
If you really, really want to blacklist these links, I suggest you first build a much broader consensus than you'll get just from the editors that watch this board. I'd start an RFC and post announcements with links at every geographically-related WikiProject as well as the Village Pump.
As for me, I'm laying low. I've seen the fights over 500 dubious links and this will be much bigger. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lame excuse. If you were really concerned with the accuracy of our articles you would not stand in the way of 9000+ articles which are known to contain false data or redirect users to false information in external links. It is ludicrous that you think there is going to be a fight over the delisting of falling rain. Who exactly believes it is a reliable source? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lame excuse" -- great. Thanks for the feedback, Dr. Blofeld.
"Who exactly believes it is a reliable source?" -- the 100s of editors who added this link. The community operates on consensus and I have recommended you start by building it. I've suggested a process to follow if you want this domain blacklisted … and stay blacklisted. Personally, I have a lot of other things I'm working on on Wikipedia and I don't have much time for this one now. Not just the big dispute that'll transpire but also carefully removing 1000s of links.
"If you were really concerned with the accuracy of our articles you would not stand in the way of 9000+ articles…"
OK, if this is still so important and urgent enough to you that I should do something, then you start by doing some of the work yourself. Blacklisting here does not remove the existing links. If appropriate (and I'm not sure it is), then you go remove 900+ with community consent; then we'll talk about blacklisting. Call it a 10% downpayment on the 1000s more links you'll remove. Until then, I'm assuming you want others to do all the work on this.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An additional thought to slow the addition of new links -- perhaps you could develop some bot that spots links as they're added and politely informs the editor adding them of reliability issues with this link.
Also, I can't encourage you enough to start educating your fellow editors. I suggest leaving notes at the Village Pump, the reliable sources noticeboard and various Wikiprojects describing the problem. You are a prodigious article builder and most of our other editors just don't have as much experience and insight as you do in many cases. By posting notices around, you can start slowing the addition of new links. Also, as you remove existing links, I suggest leaving notes on article talk pages explaining the removal. You could probably come up with some sort of tactful boilerplate text for this purpose. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my manual editing time is better spent trying to promote articles such as Mahamuni Buddha Temple than manually going through 900 articles removing the links at a snails pace. That is a task for a bot or an AWBer. If somebody here, such as Xenobot would like to volunteer and remove 900 or so further links to falling rain as a trial by all means go for it. I think then you'll see there will be no major objections to this. Perhaps Xeno could remove 900 links to falling rain in the external links section to articles? The reason why even external links are a threat is because often the articles don't contain any data and somebody guided to falling rain will think the population estaimate and data given there is totally accurate. So even if the facts are not on wikipedia we have a duty to guide people to accurate information not out of date guesses of an area. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Dr. Blofeld's harsh remarks above about my motivations and actions I will not take up space here but for the record I have made a response at User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Others care as much about Wikipedia as you do(permanent link) --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Dr. Blofeld's response. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will run this as a bot task if you can demonstrate sufficient consensus for it, perhaps by initiating a thread at WT:EL or WP:RS/N, and notifying interested parties of the discussion (as A. B. suggests, notes at WP:VPM, geographic wikiprojects, and the like). –xenotalk 15:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a consensus really needed to remove 9000 known errors or links to errors on wikipedia? Isn't good faith from 4 of our most active geo editors, myself, Darwinek, Orderinchaos and User:Satusaro enough? The objections here seem purely based upon the apparent difficulty involved with removing the links. Trust me. I used falling rain for ages. We now have 500 odd Tibetan village articles with false population and altitude data that I know is false. I'm not happy with this situation. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is demonstrably unreliable - that is to say, if it can be shown that the information is factually incorrect - then all references to it should be removed, post haste. Consensus may be required to deal with facts of a dubious nature, but when it can be shown that a data source is simply wrong it would be inane to wait for some kind of discussion before we start getting rid of links to said source. Shereth 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not needed to edit, but blacklisting a non-spammed site would require strong consensus. I have not checked the situation but I accept what Dr. Blofeld says, and I agree that having an absurdly wrong source used 9000 times (or even once) is extremely concerning and warrants a strong reaction. However, what A. B. says is totally correct and the situation is very delicate. There are quite a lot of people who regard the blacklist with deep suspicion (with extremely incorrect opinions like that it is a petty bureaucracy run by power-crazed people who never contribute to the encyclopedia, and that it is a violation of human rights conflicting with "anyone can edit", and more). I do not think any discussion here can generate enough participation to take what is possibly an unprecedented step of blocking a site purely because it is unreliable (and the discussion required would be disruptive for this noticeboard). I know it is absurd that you should have to jump through so many hoops to have junk removed, but that's what a consensus-run wiki needs. I think a specific RFC should be created with a fairly open structure: give some links showing examples of how bad the problem is; list some possible procedures; invite comment. Link to the RFC here and at any relevant WikiProject and at ANI. There was an RFC on a somewhat related topic, see WP:Requests for comment/Reliability of sources and spam blacklist. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shereth, everything is demonstrably unreliable. OK first example I looked at. Lets try Birkelane, Senegal. Official statistics site here says it has a population of 4,196. Falling rain claims it has an "estimated" population of 8,046 here back in 1995. Now lets try Kalaat es Senam, Tunisia. Official statistics claim 5044 people for 2004 census. Falling rain claims 3278 people in a 7 kilometres radius!!! let alone the town. Lets also see Shaki, Azerbaijan official statistics reveal it has somewhere between 63,000 and 65,000. Falling rain claims 107,456 people!!! GROSSLY INACCURATE by nearly 50,000!!. I could provide you 9000 examples of the same thing in practically every place I can think of. I find it very concerning nobody thinks that this is a problem. If is was known BLP errors a bot would have sorted this long ago in panic. They are not only errors but (most) of them are blunders in terms of factual information. Falling rain claimed something like 771 people for a Tibetan town, the official statistics for 2006 said 35,000 odd. The altitude data is also notoriously way out. Much more accurate data for altitude can be obtained from google earth. This site is a dinosaur. As Satusuro said it still shows railway markings and settlements on maps that disappeared like 30 years ago. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do take some ownership of the problem here, Blofeld! [2] I'm going to go ahead and proceed with removing the ones that are external links. –xenotalk 13:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could at first start with XLinkBot revert both external links ánd references to fallingrain.com. That should bring the influx a bit down, and we might get an idea how it gets used by new and anon users (unfortunately it is more difficult to do it for regulars, which would be quickly met with big opposition).
If there is deliberate referencing to fallingrain in order to incorporate false information, then I would regard that as a form of abuse which would be a reason to blacklist. But if most/all of the editing is in good faith, we indeed need a strong consensus here to blacklist the site, though I do not think that it is an absolute no-no to blacklist links if there is sufficient support to list it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything deliberate, I just think people wrongly trust it as an adequate source when I could provide 9000 examples of how the data is false. As Xeno pointed out I have enough expereince with this site to know what I'm talking about as I used it for Tibetan villages only to find out later the data is way off. I do not want other users making the same mistake. As it is thousands of Indian and Pakistani articles and African articles have this as a primary source. Not good. The only correct thing is the coordinates. But even external links leading to the site should be removed as it is directing a reader to false information. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone ahead an added it to XLinkBot with a customised warning in the settings. Xeno, maps can be done using the toolserver / google maps, weather via the national weathcer page, and airport information should be on Bandela airport (do we also have to link to the bus schedule and the opening times of the local barber?). Moreover, if the site is so grossly unreliable as Dr. Blofeld says, how do we trust the weather and airport info on that site? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Thanks for the input. –xenotalk 13:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another random example Naajaat. 63 people according to the 2007 census. Fallingrain claims it is uninhabited. Does that kind of consistent blunder really need consensus to agree it is an unreliable source? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an unintended consequence, that sentence just needs a {{fact}}-tag. No-one can be sure that that info originated from fallingrain.com, or whereever, it is just an unreferenced statement on a page where there is, accidentally, also a fallingrain.com link. I do hope that references on sentences which were only referenced to fallingrain.com are replaced with said fact-tag? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No for Tibet I know this is where the data is from. Another errand needs doing to remove the population and altitude sentences. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could do this but only if the statements are of a standard form (such as the "Approximate population for a 7 km radius..." statement. that Blofeld used). –xenotalk 11:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove, it is interesting information, though a proper source should be found, the number updated, and properly referenced. I would say that fact-tagging is the way to go, I would oppose bot-removal, but would support an attempt to update and correct, and if that is not possible, remove. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can add cn tag then, if that's preferred. –xenotalk 11:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far there has been only one objection to the task [3], I reproduce it here along with my replies for the record. –xenotalk 16:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've just deleted the Fallingrain external link at Skelani which was useful because it provided readily visible maps - no extra clicking. The latitude and longitude information is confirmed by other sites and the population figure is not implausible even given the demographic issues since the 1991 census. So I'd have opted to keep that link had anyone been bothered to ask. Opbeith (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to undo the bot and add {{bots|deny=Xenobot}} to the page to prevent the bot revisiting it. But please discuss further at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Fallingrain.com; my bot is merely doing what I've been asked to - and what seems to have consensus. –xenotalk 15:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that considerate reply. I'll leave it as I've learned that once people have their teeth into something at Wikipedia it saves energy better used for other purposes to recognise which way the wind's blowing. The idea of deleting the subject rather than using it to warn people tells me enough. But I appreciated the decent reply. Opbeith (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "deleting the subject rather than using it to warn people", though? –xenotalk 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the remaining ones? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Remaining links used as references -- what's next?. –xenotalk 13:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fallingrain compared to MSN maps

MSN maps, which can be accessed via {{coord}} with two button pushes compared to Fallingrain's one button push, are a reasonable alternative to Fallingrain.

  • Shows topography/elevations though in less detail, and less colour.
  • shows railways, including many that were closed 50 years ago. (Doesn't bill gates of MSN fame own $1b dollars worth of railroad shares?)
  • Shows rivers and borders better.
  • doesn't bother with disputed rainfall statistics.
  • doesn't bother with disputed population statistics.

See Skelani

Can the bot which is deleting references to fallingrain be modified to insert the equivalent direct MSN reference?

The fallingrain coordinates are reasonable as can be seen when creating the {{coord}} > tag, so the bot deleting fallingrain should not do so unless the completed {{coord}} tag exists. Tabletop (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support the removal of the MSN encarta links. I believe that atlas no longer exists anyway. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Blofeld, that seems to be different than what Tabletop is suggesting. @Tabletop, how would the bot determine the proper URL for the one-button push map? –xenotalk 15:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think that the URL for a one-push line to the say MSN map would have to be determined manually via the "coord" function. Tabletop (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining links used as references -- what's next?

We still have 1000s of these links left in ref tags.

Every time someone removes a reference -- even a bad one -- they have to make an editorial decision. It's not just house-keeping. Do they find a replacement ref? Just leave a {{fact}} tag? Remove the assertion that the ref is supporting? Remove the ref and just do nothing?

What if the reference is the only thing supporting notability? Do they tag the article for notablility? Nominate it for deletion (AfD)? Propose it for deletion (WP:PROD)?

I think the process followed so far -- thoughtfully removing links, leaving notices on various noticeboards, stemming the addition of new links with a bot -- is a good one.

What are others' thoughts on moving forward? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the links should be removed by semi automation and those facts which are referenced to falling rain be removed with the reference. It is no good removing the references and leaving data which is false. That defeats the object. There is also no use adding a fact tag as if it is population or altitude data it is likely false anyway. They need to be removed together. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (see my "unintended consequences" above), but suppose an editor did a hundred of these removals. It's likely that someone would strongly question the editor: Why are you removing these? Do you know they are incorrect? How? I still think some form of wider discussion would be needed so an edit summary could link to the consensus decision. Would WT:WikiProject China be suitable? Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for now to clear the backlog. It appears the effort to clean up links in advance of blacklisting ran out of steam. We can always revisit this in the future. --19:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)

glasspaint.com

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/glasspaint.com MER-C 08:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

superm.com spam

Spam domain:

Related domain:

Accounts:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

celebsexreview.com

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

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

classicalviolinvideos.com

See WikiProject Spam report. Continued spamming from an IP hopper or dynamic IP despite level 4 warnings being handed out liberally. ThemFromSpace 01:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thecurrentaffairs.com

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

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 06:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia mirror that violates our CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses.[4]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

advocatemizan.com

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

studenthighlife.com

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

boryokugai.com

boryokugai.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 one gets perennially spammed to Japanese films and genres. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Defer to Global blacklist -- now blacklisted on Meta-Wiki. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gcaptain.com

gcaptain.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

Site is systematically adding links through articles related to ships. Site fails WP:ELNO #10 and #11. HausTalk 19:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revertlisted for now. MER-C 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd thought about blacklisting this one before, having caught a few SPA accounts canvassing links. It has been listed in good-faith by established editors on occasion, though I'm not sure if all or any of the content meets WP:Reliable sources guidelines. For now, leaning toward blacklisting coupled with whitelisting as necessary per request of established editors. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList a user complained about a removal of this site (not by XLinkBot), stating that it was a relevant reference. If I see the main page of the site, it is merely a blog and a forum, which would fail both our external links as well as our reliable sources guideline. If I see the COIBot report, I see only sporadic use of the link by regulars (not taking into account the antivandalism bots; COIBot tells me the top 10 of users is: ClueBot (26), 76.191.244.217 (18), 66.169.239.221 (11), VoABot II (8), 69.148.52.55 (7), Orhanghazi (5), 123.248.145.197 (5), 66.215.124.171 (5), WebCiteBOT (4), Gcaptain (3); that are 95 out of 198 recorded additions, one COI account (very old), and 5 IPs, a handful of bots, and one regular (?). I think that blacklisting this, and cleaning of mainspace would be in order. The rest can then be regulated via whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only remaining mainspace links are on MV Maersk Alabama where my edit was reverted. HausTalk 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the change to lake freighter which I added myself when I wrote that section of the article more than a year ago and still believe to be appropriate. It is not a link to anyone's personal "bloggy" opinion but to a video illustrating a type of accident and no more OR than any nonpublished image that we host on Wikipedia. Rmhermen (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider either whether the references are replaceable by something more reliable (that it is 'no more OR than any nonpublished image that we host on Wikipedia' is a bit a WP:WAXy argument), or whitelist the links in question. Is there any active spamming recently? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts
Related domains
Possibly related domains
Unofficial Networks clients:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added only gcaptain.com and the related domains; I did not add the "possibly related" domains. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

buzznewslive.com

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 13:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bump, still spamming. MER-C 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JamProject-LA.com

Simply not necessary to use on this project. I thought I had requested it at the Global level, but must have been taken down at some point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was recently added to the page, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for now. I don't necessarily have a complete list of all the accounts adding this link, but from looking at those listed at meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/jamproject-la.com, I see that none have received warnings to date. We don't blacklist unless the spammer has received and ignored multiple warnings. Blacklisting is a draconian last step we take to stop spam; it potentially has implications beyond Wikimedia since our blacklist is referred to by other web sites when compiling their own blacklists.
These links have been cross-wiki spammed, so if the accounts get warned and the spam continues, request blacklisting at meta:Talk:Spam-blacklist. In the meantime, I've put meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/jamproject-la.com on my meta watchlist.
Thanks for reporting this one -- I'll be watching. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mangafox.com

A well known hub of copyright that has recently been in the anime and manga community news.[www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-06-18/translated-manga-scan-aggregator-removes-350+series] It is possibly the second large scanlation website after onemanga.com. While the website has somewhat cleaned up it act by removing manga scans of titles already released in English, there has been reports that the website contains several viruses, even an anti-virus virus.[www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=935425#935425][www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=935432#935432][www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=935687#935687] I've and a couple of editors form WP:ANIME routinely remove links to Mangafox when we come across them or decided to check the external links special page. —Farix (t | c) 20:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why the link shouldn't be blocked given I just removed one from a talk page[7] as well as one from article space.[8] —Farix (t | c) 23:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the history, I'm not seeing evidence of ongoing abuse of the URL. There's some questionable activity in past years, but nothing that I'm spotting that's current (if current ongoing activity that I missed, please supply the usernames involved).
At this stage, I think a better tool to address the link would be XLinkBot by submitting a request to User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requested made there as well, though I still don't understand why a website that engages in blatant copyright infringement cannot be added to the blacklist. —Farix (t | c) 14:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this problem has continued since the posts above.

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EUtimes.net

Please would you add this to the blacklist. The site contains total nonsense eg www.eutimes.net/2010/03/world-mourns-as-communist-darkness-falls-upon-america/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed: . Kittybrewster ☎ 12:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPs involved:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per this Fox News silliness and this discussion, we might want to consider blacklisting links to BoyChat and GirlChat messaging services. possibly also to NAMBLAs home page (which we apparently link, though I haven't looked at that page to determine whether it's allowable under policy). Unfortunately, Fox does not provide links to these sites; I've made a request over at the second link for someone to post them here if they can figure them out. --Ludwigs2 16:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We typically only blacklist websites that have been abused for spamming purposes. We don't target links for blacklisting based on their content as we are not censored. ThemFromSpace 16:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for the uncensored presentation of encyclopedic information, but I'm not quite so sanguine about the inclusion of external links to sites aimed at the promotion of activities that are highly questionable. Where is the encyclopedic value in that? serious question, that covers a lot of material: what is wikipedia's stand on linking to external sites about pedophilia, bomb-making, drug fabrication, forensic countermeasures to evade arrest, computer hacking and cracking, identity theft, or other potentially destructive activities? it seems like something that we ought to have some sort of policy on. --Ludwigs2 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically they are spam because they are on so many pages if you listen to Fox. [www.boychat.org/ Boychat is here], [www.annabelleigh.net Girlchat is here], and [www.nambla.org/ NAMBLA is here]. Using Special:LinkSearch, Boychat comes up clean as it only links to non-article pages; Girlchat is also clean; NAMBLA [www.nambla.org/ has six links on a few pages]. Once again, Fox is wrong so I don't think that we need to ban these pages. They got the numbers right but the certainly tried to wreak havoc by exaggerating what the truth actually is. We can close this as there is nothing to worry about here because Fox is wrong once again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Added tracking, will see the COIBot reports soon, that would tell if it got spammed, added inappropriately, or even abused (linksearch does not show history, bad additions may have been removed!!). Though I agree that we would need to see spamming and abuse before blacklisting, some things get blacklisted for reasons which are not abusive (good faith additions of bad completely copyright violating sites might still get stuff here, e.g. ...). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Fox News got the numbers correct so I'm assuming nothing has changed in the past few days in terms of the links so I guess we're seeing what they are. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added these 3 domains. Established editors that legitimately need to link to specific pages on these sites can always request those URLs be "whitelisted" at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In the meantime, blacklisting affords more control over potentially problematic link additions. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

biodiesel-processor.biz

biodiesel-processor.biz: 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

Repeated spam and IPsocking to Biofuel and sundry related articles. Seems to pay no attention to warnings, just morphs on. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same IPs spam ru.wikipedia with a related Ukrainian domain:
 Defer to Global blacklist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.densitygs.info/.com

Repeated spam at Granular synthesis, self promotion of his own software. A similar link is on it wiki blacklist too, maybe a double add is the best choice, look this too. --Sbazzone (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Defer to Global blacklist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1000manga.com

Spam at Ayu Mayu, site is purely for copyvio purposes. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 03:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a forum post at Onemanga.com (which I can't link to because Onemanga.com is already on the blacklist), it is clear that 100manga.com is a spin-off of Onemanga in order to host the mature content that was once on Onemanga, but pulled do to Google threatening to block AdSense from websites hosting mature content. Since Onemanga.com has already been added to the blacklist, so this is a natural extension of that block. —Farix (t | c) 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined -- looks like the problem has died away since WRFEC was blocked. Re-list here if the problem resumes. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

animenami.com

animenami.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

Spammers

WP:LINKVIO + block evasion. MER-C 02:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

camscamscams.org

Not safe for work.

Related domains

Registrant == Dark Dot Productions

Spammers

Look at all that invisible text -- its the worst case of keyword stuffing/hidden text I've seen. MER-C 02:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Copy Pro 4

Sites spammed
Related domains
Spammers

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

amazon.gen.tr

Heavily spammed by an editor (now blocked) and several IPs on Amazon.com. It's apparently an obscene Turkish blog. Vandals seem to be very persistent, so even if Amazon.com is protected I can't help feeling they'll move to other articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam accounts
Additional spam domain
Possibly related domains
Hosted on the same server:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added deep-blues.com and amazon.gen.tr. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cotswolds.info

Should be excluded as a low-value tourist directory for the Cotswolds which has been reference-spammed into several articles. Its contents completely fail both WP:ELNO and WP:RS so blocking it would be a big help in keeping Cotswolds-related articles clean. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, we save the blacklist for especially problematic stuff. Usually, spammers have to have ignored multiple warnings. When I look at this report, I don't see much systematic spamming nor do I see spam warnings:
As for link reliability, we normally don't blacklist for that issue alone. For one thing, 1000s of other unrelated wikis clone our blacklists and use them in their own filters. We're not responsible for their decision to do this, but we are mindful that blacklisting can have draconian effects on benign, if unencyclopaedic web sites.
no Declined for now. If I'm missing something or if major spamming occurs, please let me know and I'll revisit this decision. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

video4u.in

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 08:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. MER-C 06:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

chinaledtube.com

per blocked spammer/puppeteer Yorhaboy Jojalozzo 14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WikiProject Spam report. (Not endorsing the request, but making sure it is thorough.) MER-C 08:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

people2remember.com

people2remember.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

Is on XLinkBot, but the spam continues. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 08:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various (IP spammer 220.178.75.82)

220.178.75.82 (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) is blocked long term on enwiki - pure sporadic spammer since 2008. The user has spammed:

May also be worth spam trapping any or all of (used in spam posts): dofus kamas, dofus gold, dofus money, kamas selling, mesos, metin2.

FT2 (Talk | email) 18:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Chinese sweatshop spamming, from what I've seen it may be cross-wiki. I have three more domains and another spammer:
Waiting for COIBot, but intend on taking this to meta. MER-C 10:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pageranksites.com

Multiple anonymous users recently try to spam PageRank article with a link to this site:

-- X7q (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam of this site currently stopped on enwiki - spammers moved on to other wikis, so I've made a request for addition to meta's spam blacklist - [9]. -- X7q (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site is now blacklisted globally. MER-C 09:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Defer to Global blacklist--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pidolphin.com

Ronnotel (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

atechs.com

links
accounts
prior reports

Continued and ongoing despite multiple warnings and named user being indef blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lvstriphistory.com

lvstriphistory.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

Although this is not a spam site per se as far as I know, I request that this site be blacklisted because, other than its main page, it can only be accessed by the Internet Explorer browser. In particular, Firefox users who attempt to access pages other than the main page will get an endlessly repeated warning box that the page requires IE 4.0 or higher, and the only way to get past it is to quit the Firefox program. Also, it is merely a self-published site anyway and doesn't need to be used as a source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to access the site today using Firefox -- perhaps the site-owner has fixed his problem? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if I could get a second opinion. (Keep in mind that the main page of the site is accessible to all browsers, but pages beyond the main page were not intended to be. The main page at http://www.lvstriphistory.com/ still says:
"YOU WILL NEED MICROSOFT IE TO VIEW THIS SITE
I apologize to all of you who had to switch to IE to get to this site.") --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see what you mean -- this phenomenon occurs once you get past the first page. It effectively locks up my Firefox browser the same as some malicious sites would. I suspect it's just a benign case of well-intended but poor coding; just the same, we should not link to it. I am blacklisting this domain with the understanding that it can always come off the list once the problem's cleared up.
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

myspaSe.com

131.236.151.211 on XLinkBot's talkpage notified me, that they were reverted by repairing a link from 'myspase.com' to 'myspace.com'. Indeed, not the best of XLinkBot's reverts, but:

Redirects via

to

I have revertlisted the three, and will blacklist these three now immediately (XLinkBot will detect redirects to this site, so it will detect others that do the same). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hockeyfights.com

Moved over from User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#hockeyfights.com

Should be excluded per WP:ELNEVER: most pages contain embedded copyvio videos (usually from YouTube) of television broadcasts whose copyright is presumably owned by the broadcaster and/or league. Example: [10]. Also used as a source, despite its being for all intents and purposes a personal website/fansite lacking requisite editorial oversight to accord with WP:RS. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Defer to Global blacklist since there are copyright violations and this is being used on other wikipedia versions. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ciaoreviews.co.nr

Previous incidents
Sites spamemd
  • redirects via frameset to
  • Imitation site, the real one is ciao.co.uk
Spammers

MER-C 01:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mycineworld.com

mycineworld.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

Sustained fake reference spamming.See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spam report. While the spammers have been linking other sites as well, these are the most common and all share a host ip or an Adsense id. --Ronz (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

signature9.com

Spammers

Self published ranking of fashion blogs - MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arganoils.com

Spammers

Likes to hijack other links. - MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coffee.org

link

See WikiProject Spam report --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jackass3d.net

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 04:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More spam accounts:
More spam domains:
Related sites:
Possibly related site (on same server):
Probably related accounts (submitted to digg.com by the same accounts):
Possibly related account (shows up on some lists of "similar sites")
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added 10 domains: the spam domains and the related domains. I did not add the "possibly" and "probably" related domains for now due to insufficient evidence of a relationship. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kittyfeet.com

These constitute a homepage, a couple of blogs and a podcast site of a non-notable person (whose biography is currently at AfD). They have been spammed to a number of unrelated articles. The first two have a fair number of existing links on Wikipedia; I have removed a number of them manually but think it would be more helpful to blacklist these locally to prevent them being added once again. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will anyone add these? Kindzmarauli (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing concerted linkspamming here. Have any warnings been given to any users about the links? I couldn't find any, but could have missed them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems some have been manually removed since I filed this request. However, none of the links have any legitimate useage on Wikipedia and there is a past history of a possible COI editor adding them to articles. I do not know what else to say. Would this be more properly requested of XLinkBot? Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them to XLinkBot. Lets see if that deters (together with some appropriate blocks). Hence, for now, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

batam.com

Related domains

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 12:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

netechno.com

Spam domain
Possibly related domains
Accounts

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

plus Added the reported spam domain - for now haven't added the "possibly related" domains. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

walking.dead.free.fr

already blacklisted
used to bypass blacklisting
accounts

Edit warring, 3RR, block evasion, sock puppetry, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

davidandgoliathworld.com

link

See most recent report at Wikipedia talk:WPSPAM#davidandgoliathworld.com

SPA, COI, multiarticle linkspam. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

peregrintook.com

Fansite that has been added repeatedly to Peregrin Took by the site's owner User:Mmontelione who showed defiance on his talk page when asked to refrain from it. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This spam is being added only to one article by one user. It could be stopped by blocks or by page protection, and the user has been blocked for 31 hours. The domain does not need to be blacklisted. — GorillaWarfare talk 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals

suite101.com

www.suite101.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 was wondering whether this website in its entirety or at least this article here arthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/symbols_in_christian_art which I am trying to use for a reference on grape about the symbolism of grapes in Christian art by a Suzanne Hill could be unblocked ? Thanks for your help. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering too whether this site in its entirety or at least this article here: filmtvindustry.suite101.com/article.cfm/movies-with-similar-plots which I am trying to use for a reference on User:ProhibitOnions/List_of_films_with_similar_themes_and_release_dates could be unblocked? --Bothary (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Background discussion on this website is here. I'm of the opinion that this should remain blacklisted as it isn't a reliable source and it operates through a pay-per-click method. Removing this from the blacklist would be asking for it to be used for promotion. That being said, if the two above articles qualify as reliable sources they could be whitelisted. ThemFromSpace 22:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com

examiner.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

  • Is there a way to restrict the blacklist for examiner.com to post-February 2009 articles? That website previously hosted The Baltimore Examiner, which was a moderately well-known newspaper before it was closed in February 2009. Now, there's some kind of garbage site there, which I assume is the target of the blacklist. We're having some editors wipe out references that are actually OK. See John Astin.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the intermix. Baltimore Examiner, Washington Examiner, SF Examiner and Examiner.com were all under the same company and used the same url, examiner.com. Washington Examiner is still owned by them, but is a separate part of the business and considered a reliable source. At the same time, there were the some of the same ones currently on Examiner.com writing under that URL too. So not only do you have to parse out which city, but which dates and then decide whether it was a Baltimore Examiner writer or a writer for the Baltimore edition of Examiner.com. It's not as simple as just setting a cut off date. If you want to restore it, go ahead. But the fact remains, the site is blacklisted and the removal was not improper. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What trash site? It looks like the same exact site to me. What -was- it linking to before?— Dædαlus Contribs 05:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent company of Examiner.com owns the Washington Examiner and, at one point, it was all combined with the Baltimore and San Francisco Examiners. All have since been made separate, but they used to be at the examiner.com URL. That is where the problem is. We can't sit and play the game of trying to parse out spefici writers and specific dates from the now blacklisted examiner.com. The Washington Examiner maintains its own URL and ported over much of the material. This is complicated by the fact that the pro-am Examiner.com maintains editions in all 3 of those cities to this day. Yes, we may lose some otherwise reliable material from time to time, but most of it that I've seen isn't really critical. Examiner.com was blacklisted for good reason and the ida of trying to go back and selectively allow certain writers based on date and the guess that it was a real reporter working for the actual newspaper at that time is simply unrealistic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Technically impossible. Whitelisting requests will be considered for content from the Baltimore Examiner. (For the record, http://washingtonexaminer.com and http://sfexaminer.com are still valid sites.) MER-C 06:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To continue from Niteshift36's comment, what reasons were those that were given to block perfectly reliable sources such as this (said link had to be removed because of... the blacklist. Catch 22 anyone?), thereby, for example, disallowing me from being able to add a perfectly reliable source to properly cite an edit made here? That said, I am requesting that said link be allowed so that I may do the proper citation. Link: (insert "https://" and "www." here)examiner.com/examiner/x-50488-Baltimore-MMAPro-Wrestling-Examiner~y2010m8d2-Surprises--new-champions-crowned-at-MCW-Shamrock-X--Plus-Mickie-James--Tommy-Dreamer-return (Baltimore Examiner) . Thanks. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 14:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons are that many articles on examiner.com are not reliable, were spammed, and are a huge spam incentive. That examiner.com, on purpose, tries to muddle the water (by mixing a reliable source with an unreliable source) is indeed a problem, but that can, unfortunately, not be solved by specific whitelisting of a subset. Whitelisting the whole domain would open the floodgates. Examiner.com is .. missing a lot of incoming references due to their intentionally mixing of sites. Too bad.
For the whitelisting of 'examiner.com/examiner/x-50488-Baltimore-MMAPro-Wrestling-Examiner~y2010m8d2-Surprises--new-champions-crowned-at-MCW-Shamrock-X--Plus-Mickie-James--Tommy-Dreamer-return',  Defer to Whitelist. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to whitelist. http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-50488-Baltimore-MMAPro-Wrestling-Examiner~y2010m8d2-Surprises--new-champions-crowned-at-MCW-Shamrock-X--Plus-Mickie-James--Tommy-Dreamer-return should now work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That puts a lot of things in perspective. Thanks and done. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After further review, even the article I requested whitelisting of does things which would never fly here on Wikipedia. In example, "...in a match that many are claiming to be the Match of the Year" would be smacked right down under WP:WEASEL. As I said, that puts a lot of things into perspective. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 15:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would we even consider whitelisting that MMA Examiner. He's not writing for the Baltimore Examiner (the newspaper), he's writing for the Baltimore edition of Examiner.com. Anytime you see "x-000" then a title in the URL, that is nothing more than an Examiner.com writer getting paid by the view and nothing else. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tempsensindia.com

Dear sir/mam, We are manufacturing company and we released technical notes for worldwide temperature instruments users and students for their proper guidance. So we tried to put some useful external links but our site was blocked. We have no intention for promoting our site. please unblock this site. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.4.98 (talk • contribs)

"We have no intention for promoting our site"... ummm, no. We should take the opportunity to add
because I overlooked them (gosh I'm sloppy). Would you like me to continue reviewing your domains? MER-C 06:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MER-C, I haven't add thermowellworld.com, glassthermocouples.com, compensatingcables.net, marathonheater.in in the wikipedia ever. You can continue review our site and if you found any spam link you can block this site... but please unblock this once... give us a chance so we can contribute in a better manner. All the stuff i will send you first for reviewing then you add that knowledgeable articles in the wikipedia by yourself. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.4.98 (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I haven't add thermowellworld.com, glassthermocouples.com" -- once again demonstrably false. MER-C 04:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MER-C but i didn't do it, We are on shared network may be someone from my company put that link in the wikipedia, sorry again. I make sure this type of mistakes never happen again. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.4.98 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Commercial sites are usually not appropriate as references, and we rarely unblacklist at the request of site owners. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Techno-Flux.co.cc

I have no idea why my site is even banned. I have made no changes to Wikipedia yet. Recently when I wanted to add my site link to a Wikipedia article which I improved with information from my site I was informed that my domain is blacklisted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.15.252.114 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2010 July 2 (UTC)

We blacklist all of .co.cc, not your site specifically, because of abuse in the past. That blacklisting is unlikely to be reconsidered, but if you have specific URLs on your site that you'd like to use, the place to request whitelisting them is Mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YachtPals.com

yachtpals.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 No reason yachtpals.com should be blacklisted at wikipedia, in fact it is used as a reference for sailing and yachting all over wikipedia. No spam ever sent in from yachtpals office. Please remove from blacklist to correctly reference articles which are used at wikipedia and add new information if needed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.205.178 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 21 July 2010

no Declined - for same reason as the last two time this was requested.
Despite claim, the link is not actively in use in any Wikipedia article. Originally blacklisted due to abuse by multiple IPs from the same range as the requestor. We de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages.
Accounts spamming yachtpals.com on Wikipedia
69.228.217.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.228.227.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.228.95.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of our staff is responsible for any SPAM at Wikipedia. Perhaps you can find no references to YachtPals at Wikipedia because it is always removed as reference for some reason? Plagerism of our articles often occurs at Wikipedia, as I have found information only available at YachtPals and quotes from my interviews on the site, but they are not referenced correctly to YachtPals.com. Here are two examples I found within a few minutes of searching: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenichi_Horie and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suntory_Mermaid_II I am sure we can find many more if we did a thorough search. Please remove YachtPals.com from blacklist and I will let our staff know to never post the name YachtPals on Wikipedia or do any edits to any pages from our offices. That should satisfy all parties, and seems fair agreement. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.205.178 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Went searching for other information used from YachtPals.com and found a reason why it is hard to find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#yachtpals.com.2Fzac-sunderland-record-4178 Apparently people are removing all references to the site. I believe our competitors are at work here, otherwise there would be no reason to remove reference to us on information found at our site. We interview sailors and yachting sources directly and our exclusive information is available all over Wikipedia with no reference to us. You can contact our editor at yachtpals.com/contact. Please let us know how to solve this unfair situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailingpeople (talk • contribs) 22:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined per above. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for commercial sites to get exposure. These repeated requests for removal appear to be coming from a desire for promotion of the web site rather than promotion of the WP project. Jojalozzo 22:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

magnify.net

magnify.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

I am posting with the request that our domain, magnify.net be removed from blacklist rating. Magnify is a large network of consumer created video sites, more than 70,000 sites reside within this domain. The large majority of them are focused on information, education, and entertainment. We have just completed a major project to remove spam content, as well as sites that were using our service to promote content outside our published Terms of Service. This resulted in almost 2,000 sites being removed, and we have installed new software and procedures to review, quarantine, and moderate content on the domain. Overall, the domain provides a positive, robust, and free service to users looking to upload, host, and aggregate and curate video content. We hope the Wikipedia community will review and remove the Blacklist, or help us understand what links you find objectionable. We consider Wikipedia a critically important part of the web ecosystem, and would value any input or suggestions to resolve this. SteveRosenbaumMagnify (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This was not blacklisted for its content (hence, we do not find the links or videos necessarily objectable; that is, for as far as they would comply with our external links or reliable source guidelines), but because it was spammed (you will find many sites out there with objectable content which are not blacklisted, since they were not spammed, or we did not see them being spammed). This is not true for magnify.net: see for the first account I found: Special:Contributions/87.111.36.87 (and there were many more spammers!!). If individual editors find specific links of interest and/or use, then those can be whitelisted, for the rest there is not much use to massively link to video hosting sites. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some additional history:
--A. B. (talk • contribs)

Take autismfraud.blogspot.com off of your blacklist

This blog details the fraud of Amanda Baggs and should be included as a link in her page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.108.203 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:EL .. this one fails that, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yfrog.com

yfrog.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 Hello, someone seems to have blacklisted our site. I do not see yfrog.com in the black list log. Yfrog is a website and Twitter service that allows users to share photos and videos on Twitter and to broadcast their life as it happens. It is free for users, and no registration is required. Thank you for the help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Npettas (talk • contribs) 1:03, 2010 August 5

This is not blacklisted here, but at the separate Meta blacklist, so  Defer to Global blacklist. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've posted on the page you specified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npettas (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CardiologyRounds.com

cardiologyrounds.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 Respected Sir, We don't know why this site is banned. This is mentioned in your black list under the heading of some adsense spam. That is not our adsense id and it belongs to someone else. You can check the adsense id our site in our html code. We think that the ban is due to some error. This site is a professional website and can be removed from you spam list. This is the first social networking website on internet dedicated to cardiologists. We tried to add an external link to Cardiology page and it was banned. Please remove it from the spam list. Thank you for your time. We are ready to answer any questions from you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.123.254 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Aug_1#Cardio_adsense_5349214509828986_related_spam, is it me, or does your IP look very similar to all the IPs mentioned there (OK, it is a /15 (?) range, so coincidences are possible there). Still, even if the Adsense ID is wrong, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/cardiologyrounds.com shows 9 additions from IPS from that range (sometimes repeated additions) which looks like these IPs were spamming, and I think that all these links do not follow our external links guideline. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beetstra, We have never spammed Wikipedia. You can visit our site. This is a professional website. We don't know that we are blocked. We tried to add truly useful articles to wiki pages. Is it wrong? We don't know that we are blocked and tried a couple of times. We haven't tried some hundred times to add a link. Ours is a professional site and mentioned in other languages on wikipedia. We contributed to many articles related to the field of cardiology. Hope you genuinely consider our request. We are not here to spam wikipedia. We believe in wikipedia movement. Please let me know any other questions you have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.15.114 (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone in your IP range did, see the recorded additions in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/cardiologyrounds.com, click on the 'diff'-links. That here, on this website, is spamming (which can occur with spammy pages, but also with proper pages). Whether it was you personally, someone from your company (maybe even in good faith), an SEO, or someone else near, that is hard to tell, but still, it was added in an inappropriate way.
I would suggest, that if you find a place where you can help Wikipedia, and where a specific link is appropriate, that you make your case for a specific link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, as I am not sure if the spamming of the link stopped. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beestra, I agree with you. There was some mistake from our side. Please visit our site once. We are a group of cardiologists running this site. We are the first social networking site for cardiologists. Please consider our request for this time. If you see one more spam link from our domain, you are free to ban this for lifetime. We don't mind it. We are really genuine people here to help others. We are not here to spam. I use wikipedia everyday every moment on my iphone. You can also check that adsense id thing. That is not ours. I think someone banned us in error. Please consider this. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.15.114 (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's purpose is not to promote web sites. The objections to cardiologyrounds.com being banned appear to arise from a belief in the site's importance for the cardiology community more than in its importance for Wikipedia. Having links removed from articles and being banned here is no reflection on the value of the site to the cardiology community but rather a reflection on the value of the site to this project. Please accept the views of editors here that cardiologyrounds.com has little to offer our project without any judgment as to the worthiness of the site for other purposes and use other venues for promoting your project. Jojalozzo 16:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jojalozzo, We are not here to promote our site. They banned our site under the heading of some adsense spam. That is not our adsense id. Please check it for yourself. Please remove the block for our domain. We strongly consider that our ban is due to some confusion. Please look into this matter. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.112 (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it doesn't matter if you're site is banned nor why it was banned or who banned it since your site doesn't have much to offer Wikipedia, at least at this time. It appears that your main reason for objecting to the ban is that you want to promote your site here. I suggest you spend some time contributing to articles here as individuals instead of representatives of your site. Once you understand the project a little better maybe you will see how a reference to your site might or might not be a positive contribution to the project. I also hope you will learn that Wikipedia has no interest in providing a venue for getting the word out about your site. Jojalozzo 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metapedia.org

metapedia.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 We have an article for this, but for some reason the link is banned and has to go through Google? - The Champo (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to click on the link to the main page via the article. Either it's not blacklisted or the main page has been whitelisted for that article. In any case, no reason to link to the site elsewhere, so  Not done. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is whitelisted, yes. But why shouldn't any other subpages be referenced, e.g. in the Metapedia article? Has anyone demonstrated that there's a significant spam issue involving this website, or do people just not like Nazis? Tisane talk/stalk 23:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason we blacklist examiner, suite101, etc. There's no editorial control, and as such it doesn't meet reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems

Subic-examiner.com

The site subic-examiner.com is not affiliated with any unreliable news sources anywhere. It is part of an effort of practicing journalists in the Philippines, specifically the area of Subic Bay - once the site of a US naval base - to foster the growth of community journalism. If you ' examine' the site, this will be immediately obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigonzaga (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply (I was fully expecting someone else to do this) but how do you intend to use this site? MER-C 08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

log by month

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

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

COIBot down

Due to power issues, the box that is running a.o. COIBot and the linkwatchers has been taken down until the power issues have been resolved. This means that there is a gap from last Saturday until that moment in the link-addition database, and that COIBot will not refresh any reports. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August_2010&oldid=1108768981"