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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 – 248654690 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
→Snippet for logging: {{/request|248654690#section_name}}
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
Proposed additions
Instructions for proposed additions
Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.
{{Link summary|example.com}}-- do not use "subst:" with this template
Do not include the "http[s]://www." portion of an 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.
Thanks - problematic I agree. Reflecting & looking to list. If they do place the link again once the block expires request blocking & I will link for sure. Regards --Herbytalk thyme19:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links to this website have been repeatedly added by IPs to the Unreal article since the beginning of July when the article was cleaned up. In addition, the following users are the site owners/contributors:
They have participated in discussions on Talk:Unreal, in which they are not shy about admitting that they asked people from the website to come to sway opinion on Wikipedia. I've already given them ample policy reasons to stop adding the link, firstly because of WP:SPAM, which I believe is justified because the content of the website is not significant enough to meet the requirements of WP:V -- it is not documented by secondary sources. The website's proponents (who are all either from the website itself or related community sites who couldn't help but leave their own URLs also) argue that the usefulness or popularity of the website justifies inclusion, but again there is no objective evidence that the website is either of these things. They have continually reiterated OR-based arguments despite being told, repeatedly, that OR is not allowed on WP, and they apparently refuse to read or accept established policies, believing their own case to be exempt. In some cases the visitors have also vandalized the article, used article space to make personal attacks, or overwritten official game information with information about their own mod. I believe it is an attempt to promote the website or its work on Wikipedia. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that oldunreal.com is not a reliable source, but I'm not sure if a spam blacklist addition is the right way to go here as it's only being added on a single page. In this instance it might be better to request page protection for a short while. Hope this helps, Gazimoff11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted most of the spam adds by the above IP for searchmycampus.com. IP blocked for 24hrs. They may add the link again. Please blacklist the website -- TinuCherian - 08:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I am concerned. I'd rather see what happens after the block expires. If they do repeat it then it should be blacklisted but blacklisting is a last resort. Thanks --Herbytalk thyme09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no issues.Considering the style of contribs of the this IP editor, they are likely to try again. Anyways let us wait for the block expire. I reported this here as it was a big pain reverting these all the large scale additions of this website.-- TinuCherian - 09:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links to this unnnotable wiki have begun getting more and more prevalent, as both inappropriate "sources" and as external links across various Japanese actor articles. They are beeing added by IPs and registered users, so I don't think an IP block can help. Recent removals include three links removed from Yūya Yagira, 4 instances from Joo Jong-hyuk, 2 instances from Risa Kudō. There are now hundreds, if not thousands, of links to this wiki. This is no Memory Alpha. It is not an established wiki for using in ELs, and certainly not a valid source. I feel a blacklist is necessary to address this issue and stop this flood of spam. Additionally, the main site "d-addicts.com" actively promotes the downloading of illegal copyrighted versions of licensed series, which is a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. It also has a secondary wiki on fansubs. Not sure if its better to just block d-addicts.com all together or just this problematic one. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There are now 675 links to this site across Wikipedia, with users of the site continuing to add more and more under the false impression that existing links equals endorsement of this site. Something really needs to be done. Manual removal is a very slow process, so if there is a bot that can snag them all, that would be nice. At least one purveyor of the spam, User:Tohru-chan has been identified, but they have done it primarily on a small scale and mostly in trying to spam a single article (which is what brought this site to my attention). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that this isn't a reliable source and is likely to violate WP:EL, on a practical note there are now 817 links to this site and blacklisting this would disable editing on all the pages with those links. Do you have any proposal as to how that could be mitigated? Stifle (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. Not unless someone could code a bot that could remove them all. That's part of the problem...there are so many they can't be easily removed and they are just added back over and over so removing them right now seems like a wasted effort. With another group of similar links, folks from the anime and manga project manually removed them all, but there weren't as many links and all of the articles were within its scope. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not feed it to XLinkBot while cleaning? In that way the additions can be controlled to a certain extend (unestablished editors will be reverted). --Dirk BeetstraTC18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP user has been adding Spam links to the above address, onto various user talkpages - I propose that this link get's blacklisted I had proposed it on Meta but was redirect here. Dark Mage09:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The spamming of these links continues. Examples here and [1]. Will someone please either blacklist these domains, or tell me that it is not proper to make this request? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
petitions.pm.gov.uk
There is no obvious encyclopaedic reason why we would ever want to link to a petition. There are a thousand and one reasons why POV-pushers would want to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.82.42 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. While a petition that is in progress might be considered POV, the result of a petition together with the PM's response is definitely of encyclopaedic interest. For example, this petition on road pricing made major news at the time, gaining over one million signatures. This, together with the PM's response are useful encyclopaedic resources and are referenced in Road pricing. Rather than ban the domain it is much better to police its use. --TimTay (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not suggesting we blacklist number10.gov.uk, where the response and a summary is published. But linking the petition itself would be original research after the fact and inappropriate advocacy before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.82.42 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This domain has been repeatedly added to dog-related articles. I removed it from 25 en.wikipedia articles yesterday and from pt.wikipedia and no.wikipedia today. After reading this link and this link I can only conclude that this is a criminal scam run from India and it should be blacklisted immediately. The pattern of adding the spam is interesting, a different IP address is used each time, but always from the same Indian-registered ISP. Below are a few of the IP addresses used, but this list is by no means exhaustive:
Is a great site and doesn't count as spam but (and especially) freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com is user-written thus doesn't meet WP:RELIABILITY. There are 7134 hits for "rootsweb" in en and most of those seem to be refs. Saintrain (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are hundreds of editors adding thousands of these links, then blacklisting this domain should really get broader discussion and consensus than it would get here with the several editors that are active here. I agree that in general, these links may not be reliable sources, but I don't feel comfortable unilaterally blacklisting the site. I suggest starting a discussion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and then posting links to that discussion here and at the Administrators' noticeboard. If there's strong consensus established, then we can blacklist it. An alternative to consider in these discussions is having it monitored by XLinkBot.
This is a malicious link which leads to a porn site with a malicious script which makes it very difficult to leave or close the page without force quitting the browser. It has only been added twice that I am aware of, here and here (in both cases a reference was removed and replaced by the link), but because of the nature of the link, and because Googling the url shows that it has been spammed all over the Internets today and yesterday it seems like a good idea to blacklist it now. --Bonadea (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are just some of the link additions that I saw, and there may be more. Whatever the merit of the "Save the World Trade Center" idea this site puts forth, the site repeatedly gets re-added to various Wikipedia pages including Skyscraper, Empire State Building, Brooklyn, and others. The IP changes from time to time, so I think the blacklist is the better way to deal with this. --Aude (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This guy has been POV pushing through spam to self published pieces for a long time. I asked for and received blacklisting on a bunch of blogspot articles and ezine.com last year on Meta [25].
Turns out he's been back with his own domain since March of this year. Sites added to multiple articles by multiple IPs over a fairly long period of time so blocks and protection aren't going to work.
Defer to Global blacklist: Since this person has a history of extensive cross-wiki spamming, please take it to Meta in case he spams other projects with this domain.
I don't think the original articles were crosswiki spammed and this one hasn't been as far as I can tell. It was blocked on Meta because we didn't have the local blacklist back then. But I'm happy to put the request there if you'd prefer. -- SiobhanHansa17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use this section to request that a URL be unlisted. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section. You should show where the link can be useful and give arguments as to why it should be unlisted. Completed requests should be marked with {{Done}}or{{Notdone}} or other appropriate Indicator then archived.
SermonAudio.com
I am requesting that the domain sermonaudio.com be considered for removal from the local black list. I tried to update the entry about Giuseppi Logan with a reference to the page (blacklisted domain/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10180811720)that houses a recent interview that proves what is said about him being found by a mission group in New York. The article currently states that it is not know if he is alive. This is a good reference to prove that he is. Evidently someone in the past has abused the use of this site as a resource but I believe this is a valid use. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.163.233 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that final? Is there a way for a blacklisted domain to be used in case like this. The article says that the guy may be dead! This is proof that he is not.72.155.163.233 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting that this be removed. This is required to add a verifiable 3rd party reference to an article (which I would mention, but I can't because the spam filter even blocks on this page). It's not clear why this is on the list in the first place, as it seems to be a straightforward news site. Mdwh (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to use this article [scififantasyfiction. suite101. com/ article.cfm/ nicola_griffith] as a reference is an article about Homosexuality in SF. It looks like a reliable source, and the interviewee is notable. I assume it was blacklisted for a spamming reason, but it remains a useful reliable source (this interview is not hosted elsewhere).Yobmod (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contributing to the Green Tea Page since its inception - recently I moved one of my citations that had existed for years on the Green Tea page from the second instance of the discussion of Green Tea history in China to the first instance (the grammatically the more correct thing to do). The reaction from Ohnoitsjamie (an editor I've had issues with before showing a particular bias) was to remove 1) ALL my references immediately, 2) ban my IP for protesting, 3)indicate he would not discuss the issue further (despite Wikipedia's rules on trying to arbitrate the issue) 3) blacklist my site when I tried to get around his jihad against it because of his insistance not to discuss the issue further. Efforts I made to reinstate the reference were because of his insistence not to discuss the issue futher and my inability to get anyone else to respond to my concerns -- however, they only seemed to give him more justification to define my site as "rogue" to get around his unfair bannings and citation removal in the first place. If ohnoitsjamie had in issue with my moving my original citation the appropriate thing to do would have been to move it back. Instead my contention i he displayed a particular bias and heavyhandedness towards my citation versus others on the same page by removing (rather than moving back) *ALL* citations because I questioned his authority and pointed out his bias. Please see the greentealovers.com discussion and his responses at the bottom of the ohnoitsjamie talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie. I feel he is unfairly targetting my site. My simple request is that the greentealovers.com site be unbanned from the local blacklist and references I had on the green tea page prior to October 07, 2008 be reinstated. If he wishes to keep the citation in the same place (at the point that Chinese History referenced the second time in the page), although its grammatically incorrect, I am willing to compromise on that. What is the wikipedia policy for editors who demonstrate this type of bias and treat some contributors differently than others??? I've never had such an issue like that with any wikipedia editor before in all my years of contributions. Any issues have always been reasonably resolved in a mutually collaborative way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site in question (1) is owned by you, (2) is clearly commercial (selling tea and other products and (3) has been added by the Jpeizer account as well as a few anon IPs and a single purpose account. I suspect a checkuser would find a relation between Jpeizer and the single purpose account (as well as the IPs in question). As such, the link belongs on the blacklist. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am formally requesting a third unbiased party and not Ohnoitsjamie review this as I do not consider Ohnoitsjamie an objective party. He is the only editor I have ever had an issue with is all my years as a wikipedia contributor. The reference in question had been there for years and its clear other references on that page also sell tea. Please review my site it is rich in green tea medical, preparation, and history information and as such has been a contributor for wikipedia for years. The appropriate thing for you to have done if you had an issue was to simply replace the citation in its original position. Instead Ohnoitsjamie chose to remove ONLY my references (all of them) while seemingly ignoring the other sites which also sold tea on the page. Any sockpuppets etc. were the result of your unfair bias towards my account, and designed to circumvent your banning it while as at the same time indicating your unwillingness to discuss the issue further in violation of wikipedia arbitration rules. You're only now commenting it seems because eI have put in a formal request to unban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again I request an unbiased third party editor and not Ohnoitsjamie (the editor that is at the source of my concern) review this issue. Ohnoitsjamie is correct in that I have contributed to the green and white tea pages over years and have cited greentealovers.com, the site providing those contributions. I also concur with his sockpuppet inference. Having been blocked inappropriately and told the issue would not be discussed further I did take the issue into my own hands when there was no feedback to address my concerns with this editor. There are few other options when he can cut off conversation and ban and blacklist at will. Ohnoitsjamie seemingly has an issue only with greentealovers.com because I question some of his judgements. I think he is biased because he deals differently with my information site, which also happens to sell teas demonstrating health benefits while having no issue with vendors like Stash Tea and blogs with tea advertising wrapped around their information also being listed on the same wikipedia GREEN TEA page. Although this request is to unblock greentealovers I seriously question *HOW* he dealt with my recent citation edit -- by removing all citations and also indicating he would not discuss the issue further. Any blocking and subsequent banning stems from the original bias I am questioning. Please note editor Ohnoitsjamie is still making no attempt to discuss the issue directly with me to come to a compromise as I have offered. Rather he prefers to continue to justify his bias. Jpeizer (talk • contribs)
That is PRECISELY why I am requesting a third part review of my information site and of this issue. Ohnoitsjamie continues on a witchhunt for the greentealovers.com information site that has been contributing to the GREEN TEA pages for years with citations while completely ignoring the blatant citations of major commercial tea companies on the green tea page. Ohnoitsjamie seemingly ignores the comments I just noted another editor made to my original complaint related to just that issue filed a complaint about it—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greentealovers is not a reliable source that is acceptable under Wikipedia's verifiability policy. I removed some other links from the page, and tagged others as not complying with Wikipedia policies for referencing. Editors of the article should strive to only use reliable sources, and where the article talks about medical effects of green tea, we have guidelines that explain what is expected for medicine-related articles. --Aude (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aude - first, thanks for looking at this as an objective third party. I have put in this formal request to have greentealovers.com unblocked. In my defense I'd like you to note the followingL My site cites reputable peer reviewed journals for ALL its aggregated health information. Please see: http://216.131.68.51/greenteahealthcancer.htm. Similarly it gets its processing and preparation information directly from the largest producer of green tea in Japan which it also cites appropriately on the bottom of every page (Some images and information are courtesy of ITO EN, Inc.). The question I have is why was my contributions and citations were good enough for Wikipedia for years especially in its early days when it need non-tech information, but now it isn't. Why was my reference to Tea History in China removed now (after YEARS) by OhnoitsJamie simply because it was moved -- not added. Most importantly, why did editor Ohnoitsjamie, after repeatedly being referred to the bias even by two other editors -- not act upon it? I seriously have to question the actions he took in this case and wonder if others have been also treated in an unbalanced way. This bias alone warrants unblocking consideration. I notice on his info page he talks about the numnber of times his pages have been hacked/abused. I have to wonder if it has something to do with the unbalanced way this editor treats contributors? Also in light of your green tea page edits are references citations [3] and [8] really still appropraite by the standards you are using to qualify these references? comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is okay and encouraged to directly cite reputable peer review journals in Wikipedia articles, but self-published sites like yours don't fit within what we expect of reliable sources. Standards for references have been rising on Wikipedia, and becoming more stringent. Thus, while the links may have been acceptable (or simply not noticed) before, I don't think they should be included now. Also, realize that Wikipedia is configured to use the nofollow parameter in all external links, so having your site listed on the Wikipedia page will not improve search engine rankings. --Aude (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the references I tagged, it would be okay to remove them, but ideally they should be replaced with reliable sources. Even a major tea company like Celestial Seasonings isn't a good source, since they are in business of selling tea and probably not giving neutral information. --Aude (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your site is not what we consider a reliable source. Even if it was, you could not cite it due to conflict of interest concerns. Jamie is just doing his job. If someone persists in violating our external link and conflict of interest guidelines, then they can eventually expect their domain to get blacklisted.
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
I'm no longer requesting that the greentealovers reference be cited on the green tea page because the objective editors (Other than OhnoitsJamie) dealt with it in a balanced and fair way by deleting other references of similar context on the green tea page. I contend the argument to maintain the citation was previously valid when similar citations existed there from Tea vendors and OhNoitsJamie did nothing to remove them despite another editor stating a case for equity as well.
HOWEVER* I am still requesting greentealovers.com be unblacklisted because of the events around its original blacklisting. Greentealovers.com was a valid contributor to Wikipedia for years and wikipedia had no issue with the site when it needed that content to justify itself as more than a technical reference. Jaime blacklisted greentealovers.com because I re-referenced it, and I rereferenced it because he:
1) refusing to deal unbiasedly with the other listings like Stash and Celestial tea on the same page.
2) refused to discuss the matter further in violation of Wiki rules on trying to come to a reasonable compromise.
There is a cause and effect here: Since the original blocking of greentealovers.com was done in a biased manner -- it should be unblocked. Its enough the citation was removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.34.178 (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to delete any other links that you feel violate WP:EL, as I've told you before. There is no violation of wiki rules here; your site was clearly not appropriate, a sentiment echoed by numerous other editors. There's no valid reason to un-blacklist it, as we've already established that it's not a reliable source, and us such is not useful for Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note 8 warnings or requests to stop adding links followed by a block[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] That's a breathtaking pattern of self-serving persistence; we normally permanently blacklist domains after about 4 warnings. You've gotten warnings (some of which you erased) and feedback now from multiple editors:
I lack any confidence we can ever count on you to respect our external linking and conflict of interest rules if we remove this domain from our blacklist.
It's unfortunate and disheartening to see this self-moralizing about "self-interests" and "unethical behavior" in this discussion about a particular citation. The facts are that the Greentealovers site was a welcome and valid contributor to the wikipedia green tea page for years until Wikipedia decided to "upgrade" its citation policies -- after it had acheived enough credibility to diss the contributors that allowed it to break out of the perception by many that it was more a site for the technology-minded. Still greentealovers.com had as much validity to provide references to the green tea page as celestial seasoning, Stash Tea and other blog/advertisement references that existed on it -- and that was my argument -- PARITY AND BALANCE --until they were removed. Editors showing bias to one set of citations and not the other was hardly fair and balanced. It's unfortunate that the issue with greentealovers has spilled over into the editors deciding to also censor my addition of valid nonprofit technology references like capaciteria.org or my book about the Dynamics or Technology for Social Change. Capaciteria.org for example is a totally free nonprofit capacity resource index that I maintain for the benefit of the sector. These references were added to WIKIPEDIA over years along with other information on the topic of nonprofit technology and never challanged by wikipedia until the editors wished to make a point about this separate issue on greentealovers.com. If you'd like to throw the baby out with the bathwater and eliminate these other resources contributed to wikipedia in the past, thats fine. But please do keep the editorial self-moralizing about out of the discussion when valid contributions become invalid and unethical depending upon the year and editor deciding upon them. What disturbs me is the hypocracy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.34.178 (talk)
An edit-by-edit review of these accounts' histories shows approximately 3 hours spent adding text (about 8 paragraphs worth) in 2005-2008; much of this text was subsequently deleted by 69.123.33.133 after spam warnings. The first 3 warnings appeared in May 2006 (Jpeizer removed them) with more scattered through time. This does not include the time spent on his own article or on his web site. These accounts spent several hours adding considerable text, however much of it was from greentealovers.com and later deleted. Additional time was spent on the two deleted articles about Mr. Peizer and his web site. Much more time was spent arguing over the links, starting in May 2006 on various talk pages where they received no support:
There was also this paragraph added to our Orthopedic cast article about the erotic use of "recreational casts" along with links to three more related web sites:
I propose to remove this website from the black list as it is a highly educative and informative resource on the aluminium production. It was added only to articles which can profit from the website as their subject is explained there in more details or users can find daily news about them - aluminium, alumina and bauxite (bauxite is first processed into alumina and then into aluminium and after that foil or alloys or parts of things (plains, cars, furniture etc) are made from aluminium ingots as a final product). The website contains extensive information on the history of aluminium, aluminium production and ways of using aluminium - in design, transport, construction.LOscritor 16:10, 27 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.248.20.6 (talk)
In other words, when you spammed it you only spammed it to places you thought it might stick. But it's not blacklisted, this is simply a case of reversion by someone who did not think the links met WP:EL (and I agree). Guy (Help!) 07:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Troubleshooting and problems
This section is to report problems with the blacklist. Old entries are archived
List not working?
Resolved
Today I was able to save this edit which included the url for sexhealthguru.com (and also this one which had the url in the section I was editing).
This URL was blacklisted yesterday as \bsexhealthguru\.com\b [44].
Interesting. I can save the full http:// sss.sexhealthguru.com in my own user space [45] but not on this page. But I can't save http:// www.sexhealthguru.com in either. Is this worthy of a bug report? -- SiobhanHansa20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found.
Addition to the COIBot reports
The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):
first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
third number, how many times did this user add this link
fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.
If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user do add a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.
I notice that sometimes people who are not active on IRC need some link reports. Admins here can now add {{LinkSummary|domain}}toUser:COIBot/Poke, when COIBot picks up the edit to that page (and it should), it will put the domains into its reporting queue (high priority, which is, only behind waiting XWiki reports) and create a report on the link(s). The first report should be saved within about 5 minutes, if it takes longer than 15 minutes there is probably something wrong, and it may be useful to add the template with the link again (it reads the added part of the diffs (the right column)), or poke me or another person who is active on IRC personally. Hope this is of help. --Dirk BeetstraTC (en: U, T) 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kingcomp (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I manage aceshowbiz.com, I need to know when did our website spam prolifically ? Did it happen lately or many years ago ? We have many worth suggest article such as exclusive interview with Demi Lovato (Celebrity News, Sep 18, 2008). Please consider unlisted our website from your spam list as there is no such action for years. Many years ago aceshowbiz.com just a small website, right now we've already doing partnership with many big / reliable company. There is no time for us thinking for spamming. Just quality. Please take a visit to our website an consider. Thank You.[reply]
I have no idea how to make a request, nor link to my profile, but I am Soulen and can you revert the text I added to the Dragon Ball Z Tenkaichi back in, and just not the link to Youtube?
Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 13:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Stifle (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined due to history of abuse. Please find an alternate source or request whitelisting of a specific url at mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added: technologyforsocialchange.org --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
→ MediaWiki:Spam-blacklistingTemplate:·w (WP:BLACK)
