Talk:Spam blacklist: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:35, 14 December 2007

The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist. There is also a more aggressive way to block spamming through direct use of $wgSpamRegex. Only developers can make changes to $wgSpamRegex, and its use is to be avoided whenever possible.

For more information on what the spam blacklist is for, and the processes used here, please see Spam blacklist/About.

Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, or Troubleshooting and problems, read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In addition to that, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. Other discussions related to this last, but that are not a problem with a particular link please see, Spam blacklist policy discussion.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

Information: List of all projects; Overviews; Reports; Wikimedia Embassy; Project portals; Country portals
Tools: Spam blacklist; Title blacklist; Email blacklist; Rename blacklist; Closure of wikis; Interwiki map
Requests: Permissions; Bot flags; New languages; New projects; Username changes; Translations; Speedy deletions

[edit]

snippet for logging: {{/request|792199#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, please do a search for the url (link) in question with this Archive Search tool.

Spam that is only affecting a single project should go to that project's local blacklist, if available: ENWP

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived.

islamdk.dk

Spam added by 90.184.104.220 on some wikis:

Thanks, Atluxity 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Found contributions on nn:wp too:

http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.184.104.220

Atluxity 12:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've cleared the en wp links by that IP and placed a warning on the page. I'd prefer not to list without reasonable warning where it is possible? Could you place any warnings? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Roger that, have warned on my wiki, no:wp. -- Atluxity 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

statisticum.org

http://dzendo.org

Added by anonym and beginners, the promotion of a particular Russian qigong (Chinese gymnastic) club to general articles on philosophy and religion ("Soul", "Tao", "Zen", "Shamanism" ...)

TheNeon 09:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This looks like an issue but is it a cross wiki issue? If not then local (ru) blacklisting may well be the best option (each wiki has a "local blacklist" now so you would need to request it on the talk page here). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.hurghadahomes.co.uk

Sample edits

en
de
pt
sv

... or global contributions 172.189.129.13.

/NH 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.hurghada-tourism.com

/NH 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Several domains...

From this edit and this one, please add these domains:

\balexine\.cn
\bday-n-night\.cn
\bimmur\.cn
\bmintman\.cn
\bnanosec\.cn
\bpitana\.cn
\bplacebos\.cn
\bslummy\.cn
\butimer\.cn

I've blacklisted on my local wiki, but I figure it would be a good idea to preempt further spamming. 70.103.216.66 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I certainly see evidence that these domains are troubling you. However this page is really intended for those who trouble Foundation projects in the main. Is there any evidence that this is the case? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

satanicambience.com

satanicambience.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

Cross-wiki spam, see en:WT:WPSPAM#spam.satanicambience.com and COIBot report. 124.182.60.84 11:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements.

sforzesca.it

Is it possible for this website to be removed as spam? It's a website of cultural italian association. This is the line in blacklist: \bsforzesca\.it Thanks

The request is here and seems valid...--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

But, it's possible modify this situation? The link I care was segnalated in those wiki voices because sforzesca.it is an historical site, not for spam! Thanks --82.105.154.2 11:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)SforzescaReply

The site was blocked because it placed excessive links on it.wiki. There is no valid reason to remove it as far as I can see, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for your help! I would insert it into italian wiki voice: "Sforzesca". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.105.154.2 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).

Rule in error

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As COIBot repeatedly crashed upon loading the regexes from the meta blacklist, I found that there was a rule with an error. The regex '\bweb\.archive\.org[^ ]{0,50}obsessedwithwrestling\.com' is incorrect, the first [ should be preceded by a \ (so '\bweb\.archive\.org\[^ ]{0,50}obsessedwithwrestling\.com'. Can someone have a look and (if necessary) repair? Thanks. --Beetstra 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Think I've fixed it - if not, let me know - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Syntax Error: This is a RegEx Error and produces a error in some regex routines (? Better correct it to (\?

in \zoofi the \ is needless

No, these are perl regex's. "(?" means that the term enclosed in the parentheses is to be matched case insensitively, whereas "(\?" would imply "preceded by a literal '?'". Similarly, "\zoofi" matches "oofi" at the end of a substring being checked, and "zoofi" instead matches the literal "zoofi". AmiDaniel 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK:

i used the list in a program with "Microsoft VBScript Regular Expressions" in VBScript.dll, and this caused a error by "(?". So i thought this is a general RegEx Error. And i thought that the spamwortcheck is principally case insensitive, and you wand finde the literal "?".

And i thought that you want finde "zoofil..", (it was in once the past like this in the list, without "\", if i remember correctly. "zoofil.." is a word for "se-x with a-nimals" and a typical spamword.)

thanks for responding —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.191.29.92 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments13 people in discussion

Local blacklisting vs. global blacklisting?

Now that there is a local blacklisting capability, the question arises as to when to blacklist locally and when to blacklist here.

My personal opinion is that Meta should remain the primary venue for blacklisting. It's hard to predict who's going to spam more than one Wikipedia. While we now have a tool to find a given spam domain on the 57 largest Wikipedias, it remains problematic to find it on the 200 smaller Wikipedias or the other 450 to 500 Wikimedia projects (Wikiquote, Wikisource, etc.) There's value to all these other projects in listing stuff here.

I think the local blacklist option is good when one project wants a domain blacklisted and another project wants to use it. This happens occasionally when a given spammer makes himself intolerable on one project while the link is being used appropriately on other projects.

What do others think about this? --A. B. ^(talk) 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Generally speaking, I agree with you. I don't have a big problem with local blacklisting on a particular project as a way to immediately interrupt a spammer in progress, but standard procedure should probably be to follow that action up with a request for meta blacklisting.--Isotope23 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a crosswiki admin if I see spam pages created or bunches of links placed I immediately add them to local blacklists that I can access. It's quicker and easier than coming here (where I have not always been helpfully received) and there is at least one or two sites that I've blacklisted that have apparently valid links on en wp for example - just my 0.02 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

See Spam blacklist/About and use the block with the smallest possible range. Now local blacklists are available it's not worth the work of blocking here and potentially causing side-effects in hundreds of wikis until there is an established pattern of cross-wiki spamming. Perhaps automatic rejection until at least five wikis have been spammed. And not automatic acceptance after five, just eligibility. Jamesday 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting idea - how would you know a site was blocked by five wikis say? They do not tend to be well used (local blacklists) - I'm about the only one who adds to the 4 I have access to. The principle is fine - the practice? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Metric criteria are nice I think. I don't think however we need to say "blocked from five or more wikis". I think that it is just okay "five or more wikis were spammed". Currently, my personal criteria is very low though - spamming to two or more wikis regardless languages (both sets of i. enwiki and enwiktionary and ii. enwiki and dewiki are enough for me, I mean). --Aphaia 10:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am with AB on this: we should use meta as both the main blocking list and also a forum where people go to see if someone has been causing a wider problem. Otherwise it becomes impossibly complicated to block from here and the argument "it this a nasty spammer who xyz" becomes "who abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". --AndrewCates 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

reset

In the past I've not been well received on this page so have tended to avoid it and operate local blacklists where I have the rights. However I am increasingly interested in this as at least a clearing house for queries influenced in part by A.B. I have posted to a couple of Foundation mailing lists & I'm hoping to hear other views. I'm happy to review/discuss possible spam issues here whenever I'm around - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If we don't blacklist by default here, then there should be a list or some mechanism (perhaps a bot) that tracks all the entries on the local lists so that other projects can check their links against what's been spammed elsewhere.

Ideally, the bot (or human volunteers) would also run periodic checks using a faster, expanded version of http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/linksearch to see if locally blacklisted links are showing up on any of the 700+ Wikimedia projects. (I say "faster, expanded" since that tool checks up to the 57 largest Wikipedias and may take several minutes when checking 57).

Also, it's hard to rule out cross-wiki spam when our best tool just checks 57 of our 700 projects.

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS, Call me lazy, but maybe it's just easier to just blacklist by default here as opposed to setting up a new coordination system.--A. B. ^(talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

When I was involved into the maintenance of this list, some years ago, I got such complaints by email periodically. It takes a time to reply them courtly but firmly. I think this kind of complaints are better to deal by the local people at first. Also I'm afraid this list affects too much websites. So I don't support "anything on meta and at first" tactics. And as for maintenance, this page is huge and editing is a pain. Single-website affecting spams are better to go to their local list, I think. --Aphaia 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aphaia, right now, it seems like this list is running pretty smoothly without much admin effort. As for its maintenance, that doesn't seem to be much of a problem now. As for e-mails, I'm not an admin, but because I make so many requests here, I get them too. I just refer them back to this talk page, suggesting that they make their case here before a wider audience; I also make sure at least they get answer from me here if not from others. The admins that work on this list seem to have thick skins, are undeterred by complaints and are always willing to do the work. As for this list affecting many websites, you're right and that argument cuts both ways. This list also protects many web sites from known spammers.

In any event, what's the mechanism we're using for coordinating to ensure that spammers locally blacklisted in one place aren't spamming in another? Who's doing this work now? We must have a system in place to track this before we deprecate this list to use for proven cross-wiki spam only.

A useful parallel is the whole open proxy issue. For several years, different projects have battled open proxies separately resulting in a large duplication of effort. An open proxy blocked on fr.wikipedia (perhaps our best OP-fighters) would then be used by other spammers, vandals or POV-pushers to cause problems on nl.wikipedia or ja.wikibooks. Only now is there some convergence on a meta-level solution. Meanwhile, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction with spam. Meta has a critical role to play here, whether it's blacklisting globally or just tracking globally to catch cross-wiki spam. Either way, we must not abdicate our role and our responsibility (especially to the smaller wikis which have proven so vulnerable to spam). --A. B. ^(talk) 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's another time to blacklist at meta: links to blatant copyright violations. For example, when the domains associated with this discussion all finally get identified, they should probably be blacklisted here even if we only find it on one project. That's because these sites are all blatant violations of different magazines' copyrights; we can't afford to have links to these sites if we can help it. (See the discussion of "contributory infringement" at en:Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works and en:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). --A. B. ^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agree completely - I do think we need to hammer out some approach to Meta blacklisting policy probably by extended/clarifying this. For anyone new arriving here (Meta sysop or another project user) this page is frankly unhelpful. My time is under considerable pressure at present but I do see this as a high priority and any help will be appreciated.

We would be able to clarify cross wiki spamming as a concept, the fact that some site should probably be blocked at a Meta level anyway such as above or sites that may compromise machines etc. We can also make blocking url shorteners a policy for example --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Besides of all ... I eventually found this page: Spam blacklist policy discussion. Since this discussion is lengthy and it becomes clearer we need to have a global policy of inclusion for maintaining this page, are we better to move the discussion place? Or better to stay here? --Aphaia 22:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm for here, because if it's spam to one wiki odds are it's spam to most of them. Say, you have a marketing company that uses aggressive JavaScript, if each user on en.wiki who has been there complains, odds are it'll still be aggressive to fr.wiki. Yamakiri 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok - I agree with Yamakiri's point generally. If they spam one wiki they probably aren't useful to another one (& if they are whitelisting is an option).

However (& thanks Aphaia - I must have found that page in the past because I'd got it on my watchlist) we have Spam blacklist policy discussion & Spam blacklist/About and yet still no real clarity about policy or help for those who are not used to these pages be they admins or other users. My postings to both Foundation-l and the list for Meta met with nothing much so I guess it is up to us to hammer out guidelines policy etc. Until early October my time will be limited but I'll do what I can. I think it may well be worth a fresh start rather than trying to make changes to what we already have? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

My 2 cents. I'm sysop at 7 wikis. I would always use local blacklist (for instance, a spanish page isn't likely to be spammed on russian wiki), but if I see crosswiki spam as I JUST spot for [1], I'd come and global block. Local lists exist for a reason, and it's easier to keep track of. Global list should be used only when global blocking is needed. drini ^[es:]_[commons:] 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Beyond the 57 Wikipedias searched by Eagle 101's cross-wiki search tool, this blacklist is also relied on by 650+ other Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wiktionaries, other Wikipedias, etc.). So for Spanish projects, there are these additional targets for Spanish-only spammers for which we don't have much visibility unless someone manually runs a linksearch domain-by-domain, project-by-project:

That or if we're lucky and Luxo's x-wiki user search tool finds the spammer using the same IP or user name on other projects. (That tool is sometimes off-line; at other times it misses contributions on some wikis).

I think another, less important factor to consider is how non-Wikimedia sites might use a domain. All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. A site selling an obviously bogus get-rich-quick scheme or magnetic underpants as a cancer cure has no value to any of our projects nor to any of the 1000s of other wikis our blacklist affects. You might as well do everyone a favor and globally blacklist such a site even if it appears on just one Wikimedia project. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Picking up Drini's point, local blacklisting is great. However it is dependent on admins locally being

Aware of it
Understanding regex adequately
Being interested in the prevention of (inappropriate) external links

If any of those criteria are absent then so is local blacklisting effectively.

Equally on A. B.'s point, there are some sites that just aren't needed by the Foundation (or most other folk) such as the batch of adult sites I just added. In such a case it matters not whether they spammed one or many wikis they should be listed here not locally I think.

We do need a sharpening of policy (referred to above) which - when excess time is available! - I certainly aim to take a look at. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Coibot's monitor list is quite efficient at spotting crosswiki spam, however it requires that someone actually look at the reports and notice it (as I did with uarticles.blogspot.com, which was recently meta-blacklisted). It has a 'stalk page' feature which picks up domains added to watched pages using the spamlink template.. I imagine it could stalk the local mediawiki blacklist pages as well. I'm a bit reluctant to give it more tasks at this point as it and it's related linkwatchers are resource intensive, consuming about 2/3rds of the resources on a 4proc/4gig Sun Ultra80. --Versageek 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext

Hello all, I don't know if it is possible but it would be a nice feature to have 2 'MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext', one that shows up if the url is on the local MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist on a given wiki and one that is shown if the url is on the global one here at meta. Because as far as I saw many wikis gave a link to meta in the local MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext and now people are redirected here even even if the link is not blacklisted here but locally. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

bugzilla:12034 opened, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 11:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

We've been getting increased en: wiki reports here that are on their local blacklist. I've updated en:'s text to give more information on checking locally for now, though this would be a much better solution. xaosflux ^Talk 01:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank You for Your efforts. Though I saw that also other wikis are directing people here, so that it would still be usefull. I would love to see some activity at that bug, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

In general, I think the Mediawiki:Spamprotectiontext(s) should be more explanatory. Most wikis only provide a rough translation of the default message. Often users dont know what to do when they are prevented from saving a page - after all, they didn't add the link. And so, if they are only doing a minor edit they will probably just leave it and go on with something else. /NH 01:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Edit-summaries

Hello all, I am curiousif it is possible to have the spamblacklist block also edit summaries. Currently it does not block edit summaries (see [2] -> but [3]). This would be really a great feature since the spambots are concentrating on the summaries. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is it necessary? A url appears on an edit summary plainly, not as a link. It is less bothersome than spamming on the actual text. It may even be a convenient spam detector. Hillgentleman 06:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The bothersome thing about this is not the link itself, which is in fact not clickable, but the fact that spambots are messing up dozens of wikis, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe hard to believe but I am not really interested in the tools, only what I can do with them. One I would love is the ability to block open proxy spambots across all wikis! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

True. It may stop them for a while until they become more sophisticated. Hillgentleman 08:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

spamlink template

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

en:User:Shadow1 and I are working on the linkwatchers. At the moment we are running them on 722 wikis (which is 'all' by the count of about one and a half week ago). User:COIBot is watching these 722 wikis, and reports when a link is on its monitorlist (and those links are generally there when it is spammed, see the explanation on en:User:COIBot). On the english wikipedia we use a spamlink template for reporting external links, which directly links to a number of search engines, and to a number of reporting systems, including COIBot. Would the template be of interest here? --Beetstra 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

A link to the template would be useful? Getting reporting a little more consistent on here would make our lives a little easier too - it is not always clear what the extent of the problem is (nor sometimes the exact site name). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I created a version of that template here a few months ago: Template:Spamlink. It may need to be updated with the latest, greatest features - but it is here. --Versageek 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have updated the template to a more meta-like form. When you use '* {{spamlink|example.com}}' it displays the next line:

example.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)

In order:

First what is in the template,
Linksearch for meta and the 5 big wikis (en, de, fr, en.wiktionary, fr.wiktionary, see Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size),
'LinkReport' is a report generated by an IRC bot by Betacommand, it is a save of a current linksearch on en.wikipedia.
'COIBot Linkreport' contains a summary of all use (by not-whitelisted users) on all 722 wikiprojects on Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size, since the moment of blacklisting/monitoring (see en:User:COIBot for more info).
Eagle's spam report search searches for reports on en.wikipedia spam archives, and here as well I think.
interwiki link search: 20 and 57 search in resp. the 20 and 57 biggest wikis.
LinkWatcher search searches in en:User:Shadow1's database (only en at the moment, probably at some time also for more/all wikipedia).
Wikipedia search searches for the existence of the page with the url name on en, de and fr.
google search searches for info on the site on google.
Veinors pages contain also link-addition information
domaintools gives info on the domain
AboutUs.org gives info on the domain
Yahoo backlinks, search engine results.

I guess it contains pretty much all the tools needed to investigate the link, latest additions and current use. Hope this helps. --Beetstra 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks good - we'll see how it goes as it gets used. Given the nature of it I'll probably semi protect it I think - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it is protected (or did you just do that?). --Beetstra 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way, to keep yourself more or less up to date, you can watchlist User:COIBot/LinkReports, that gets updated when COIBot saves a report (about every 5 minutes). It may get you one step ahead of a spammer (though take care interpreting the report, COIBot sometimes picks up links by mistake). --Beetstra 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Protection - yes (when I am around I am not generally slow!). As to watching (& for me) the honest answer at present is "no time" - I would consider myself pretty active on three wikis at least so I tend not be short of work. When I get time I will check it out and see what I can do - thanks for your work & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Quilpué

Quilpué is included in black list I need un blocked for editing, mapupungu link, like as mapudungun|mapudungu...--190.22.20.152 12:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is not listed on the blacklist here not on en wp's blacklist. Which wiki are you having problems on? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

@@ Line 117: / Line 117: @@
 I've blacklisted on my local wiki, but I figure it would be a good idea to preempt further spamming. [[Special:Contributions/70.103.216.66|70.103.216.66]] 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 :I certainly see evidence that these domains are troubling you.  However this page is really intended for those who trouble Foundation projects in the main.  Is there any evidence that this is the case?  Thanks --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 08:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
+===satanicambience.com===
+{{spamlink|satanicambience.com}}
+Cross-wiki spam, see [[en:WT:WPSPAM#spam.satanicambience.com]] and [[en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/satanicambience.com|COIBot report]]. [[Special:Contributions/124.182.60.84|124.182.60.84]] 11:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 == Proposed removals ==