User:Nixeagle/Sandbox/AdditionsNotDone

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

All sedoparking.com redirects[edit]

I was going to suggest all sites spamvertised by 198.185.10.2, and the IP itself, but this is a better idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:198.185.10.2 Eagle 101 already banned it for 48 hrs, spam continues. e.g.: myfirstpieceofass.com , Foreignaccentsyndrome.net, pharmparty.net, kebiracrater.com etc. All are sedoparking.com redirects. I can't think of a legit link to a domain that would redirect here. This would perhaps require a bit of coding.

FYI:

 unix% wget kebiracrater.com
--11:12:42--  http://kebiracrater.com/
           => `index.html'
Resolving kebiracrater.com... done.
Connecting to kebiracrater.com[216.104.161.111]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://www.sedoparking.com/kebiracrater.com [following]
--11:12:42--  http://www.sedoparking.com/kebiracrater.com
           => `kebiracrater.com'
Resolving www.sedoparking.com... done.
Connecting to www.sedoparking.com[212.227.34.3]:80... ^C

Oh, and http://research.microsoft.com/Typo%2DPatrol/ has a LONG but dated list of blacklist-worthy domains. Yes, the page is not the up-to-date one and yes it's from the evil empire. --Elvey 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sedoparking.com itself is not blacklisted, why all the redirects? Lets just keep blocking that one IP. Looks like it is a static one anyway. Eagle 101 19:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
See www.041906.com for the list of domains this spammer is selling. I suggest just blocking them all. They're parked with sedoparking to get some revenue while parked but this spammer's niche in the spam chain is not driving traffic to sedoparking ads but rather building up the domains' traffic so he can sell them. If you look at this Google search, you'll find some domains not on this list; presumably he's sold them recently. He probably hasn't heard of the nofollow implementation. --A. B. (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
All the domains are also listed at en:User talk:198.185.10.2‎ now. --A. B. (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, A. B. I took forever getting a list ready for here!
The full list of domains is: <now listed at en:User talk:198.185.10.2‎ thanks to A. B. :)> I put them here for the simple reason that this page is static, while we don't have control over the other page. I will look into blacklisting all of these. Eagle 101 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems like it is from only one IP right now, lets wait a bit and see if they will stop (thanks to A. B.'s warning). Eagle 101 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not done - does not seem to be an ongoing problem with this one. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

cuba.com.ua[edit]

Spammed from multiple IPs many times. Was restored more then 10 times after being deleted. [1]

Not done - Try protecting the page first. That oftentimes stops the spam, as they appear to only want the link on one page. (Do a semi-protect for about 3 days). —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

healthdel.com spam on Wikipedia[edit]

Spams multiple articles on en.wikipedia using multiple sockpuppets.[2][3][4][5][6][7] --A. B. (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not done I added the link to shadowbot for now, as it appears to be an english wiki problem only. If shadowbot can't do it, then I will blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

stats.mantoy.org/taeskelion[edit]

History at en:Tau Gamma Phi was so convoluted with this attack site that it took me 6 edits to fix everything.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done - If it goes back under attack, just protect the page. :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia review[edit]

Please blacklist *.wikipediareview.com on the English wikipedia. Harassment and outing site, used to primarily 'out' and publically research the IRL identities of Wikipedia editors and administrators. Currently blocking and harassment policies on en. say that linking to attack/outing sites is forbidden... and as one of the lead attack sites on Wikipedians there is no reason it should ever be linkable anyway. Sites current existence and function endangers the real-world privacy and safety of all of us. DennyColt 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse DennyColt's request. Anything that can reasonably be done to protect the safety of its editors should be of paramount importance to the Foundation. Oh, and please blacklist Daniel Brandt's site as well, for the same reason. ElinorD 16:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support, per Denny's reasoning. Jayjg 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support from me too. I've requested this before. The site libels people, not to mention the thousands of childish and hurtful insults, the attempts to out people, and the support for stalkers. There's never a legitimate reason to link to it because it could never be regarded as a reliable source for anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree that WR should be on the blacklist. It is against Wikipedia-en policy to link to this site. The least disruptive way to enforce this policy is to use the blacklist. Any other method draws more attention to the site and the edit thus defeating the underlying purpose of the policy. FloNight 17:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a new guideline change made within the last day as I understand it.[8] I think it makes sense to block wikipediareview if that's new rule since I understand users adding those links will now potentially be blocked[9] for harassment (see en:WP:STALK. As a customary courtesy, I recommend first breaking the 227 links that exist across various projects:
Many of these links are on "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk" pages. Others are on user talk pages put there by someone else. Finally, blacklisting these links first will lock up the main French Wikipédia article. --A. B. (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can go through and start deactivating/breaking links in subpages and archives on en... and leave notes for top level pages, like user pages, like I had been (started already). For the other language WPs, should there just be a note in the edit to link/look back here? DennyColt 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Take look at how I handled a sensitive set of links referring to the holocaust.[10] This was just on the en.wikipedia pages and I think JzG had already deleted all the links in article space. He also had people on the other wikipedias do all their removals. In the case of talk pages, I always left a note explaining what I was doing and why -- not just an edit summary. In the case of user archives, I did not edit the archives but left a note suggesting they would need to do this before they tried to edit them. Take a look at the recent deathcamps.org discussions here and in the March or Arpil archives to get a sense of the type of stuff I'm talking about.
For straightforward junk-link spam, I'll sometimes just go on as an anon on other wikipedias and delete a link, leaving a wikilink to this page and the appropriate section as my edit summary. But this one is likely to be a sensitive blacklisting with other wikipedias; insensitively handled, it may raise hackles elsewhere about "unilateralism", "censorship" or "en.wikipedia dominance", since the arbcom ruling only applies to en.wikipedia.--A. B. (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm very happy to remove them from French Wikipedia, where I have an account. I'd like to know, first, if an admin here is going to add the site to the blacklist, because I would probably explain in the edit summary that this link is about to be added to the blacklist at meta. I tried to help a week ago by removing deathcamps.org and death-camps.org links from German Wikipedia, while there was a discussion here and at the English admin's noticeboard; but the German Wikipedians didn't seem to like it, and I wasn't able to explain in German. ElinorD 19:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, for en. Once its done we can just link back to here. DennyColt 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Solid oppose. Many of these links are cites. They've already as much as said that the link blanking that has already taken place is grounds for a lawsuit. You would have to go back around and remove the content-- including in history-- in order to really fix this issue. And for what? Link blanking of this sort is just going to enable them to reply, utterly correctly, that your problem is that you cannot stand criticism. Mangoe 04:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt that they would make that reply, Mangoe, but I'm sorry to see that you think the reply would "utterly correct". Surely you can see that it's one thing to criticise, and quite another thing to expose people to the danger of real-life stalking, phonecalls to employers, etc., by posting their personal details. I really hope the administrators at meta will care enough about the security of their volunteers to put that consideration before all others. ElinorD 08:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support This site serves as a host to those out to slander valuable members of the community and also to those harrassing or stalking members. For instance, a friend of mine, who is a female administrator at the english WP became the victim of a stalker with threats to her family, phonecalls to her workplace. The stalker was banned from en.WP but was gladly accepted at WPreview. Another valuable editor was harrassed into retiring from WP alltogether, after some members of WPreview revealed his family details and send letters to his superiors in his job. Unfortunately we cannot stop these activities but at least we should not support their endeavours.- Oh, and of course the line should be blacklisted from all Wikipedias and related projects, not just from the English one. Str1977 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for what it's worth - any user on enWP who links this site will almost certainly be blocked or banned immediately, and there is no conceivable article for which wikipediareview could be considered a reliable source. Nothing to lose and everything to gain form blacklisting. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How is this site being spammed? If this is a single-project concern and the site is not being spammed, it does not belong on the spam blacklist. If it is being used legitimately on other projects, then en.wiki should revert and block editors who include the link instead of having it blacklisted here. Please note that this is the spam blacklist, not the unwanted site blacklist as some editors may think it is. It is not used only on Wikimedia wikis but is generally copied to other sites that utilize the Spamblacklist extension. Therefore, unless evidence can be presented that the site is actively being spammed, it should not be added to the blacklist. Naconkantari 22:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think it should matter what the list is called; I think what matters is what it can be used for, and it is used for making links to inappropriate sites, be they spam or attack, incapable of being made. It's a helpful function, so we should use it whenever we can. Picaroon 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    It matters what the list is called. This list is specifically designed to combat widespread spam. It is not to be used for selectively blocking sites that may be inappropriate on single wikis. This list is not used just for Wikimedia wikis. It is not designed to block based on disputes. It is solely for reducing spam, which the above editors have not shown this site has done. I will strongly urge that this site be not included on the blacklist as it does not meet the definition of spam. If you want the site blacklisted, I'd recommend that you start a poll to change the scope of the blacklist. Naconkantari 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support blacklisting, it's an attack site and linking to it is blockable. Lets not give people the chance to be blocked. Picaroon 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done as this is an issue with only one wiki's community wanting this link gone, I don't see a need to blacklist this across all wikis. What you guys can do is request en:User:Shadow1 add this link to en:User:Shadowbot. Regards —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What good will this do eagles?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawenforcer (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

accelerator3359[edit]

The URL accelerator3359.com is being spammed in various articles across various languages. Just a guess but with all the usernames its probably someone editing from an open proxy. Diffs are as follows:

[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] [40], [41], [42]---Juvisaid 21:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is another "Joe Job" from Barber, this site is wrestling related unsurprisingly. 81.151.42.92 22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Not done Its confirmed to be part of the joe job vie checkuser. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

meatspin[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Not done

Shock site, used in vandalism (example). The primary domain is meatspin.com, but others, such as meatspin.net, redirect to it, so anything with "meatspin" in the URL should probably be blacklisted. I could dig up more examples if you want, but I can't think of any legitimate reason to link to the site. --Slowking Man 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of this link being spammed into Wikipedia? Are there more then one IP range currently doing this? Or, any evidence of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a spam site (ad-mungous, bought by someone deliberately to exploit its viral propagation), and there has been endless argumentation about it on the talk of en:Shock site. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Has the argumentation reached consensus? What about other wikis? Eagle 101 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"wowomg.com" is a direct link to meatspin, just so you know.--71.203.147.175 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It belongs on the en:Shock site article, and cannot be blacklisted because it needs to be on that article. 69.117.252.186 03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not done. The spam blacklist is intended neither to resolve content disputes nor enforce censorship of inappropriate content. It should only be used to counter widespread, disruptive or malicious placement of links where administrator tools are insufficient to easily contain it. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, Meatspin already has several redirects and they are promising a new one every month.--71.203.147.175 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done (so bot will archive this... ) —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

exoticindiaart.com[edit]

See this link search: en, de, es, loads of others. The /article links are generally OK, but the /product, /book and /painting ones are straight sales pages. I propose we blacklist /products, /books, /paintings. Or blacklist the whole site and we'll find better, non-commercial sources for the other data. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok JzG, looks like we have the following counts of links on 15 wikis:
Total count: 168 en: 133 de: 5 ja: 0 fr: 1 pl: 0 it: 10 nl: 1 es: 5 pt: 7 zh: 1 ru: 0 fi: 1 no: 4 he: 0 sco: 0
Is there an agreement to have this site removed on the following wikis? I would worry about getting agreement from the english, and Italian wiki before moving on with your idea. Eagle 101 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how to contact it: - I will find their amdin noticeboard. 80.176.82.42 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
How are things going with this? —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not done per inactivity. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

e-library.net[edit]

Spammed from a few IPs within the same subnet (see en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.1 - blocked on nl:wp, en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.10, en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.130) Diffs: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Sandox 07:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Have we tried blocking the IP range? (a short time can often discourage them). Eagle 101 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
We need to block the ips as this sites has some great content wikipedia.org can use.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not done seems to be resolved by block, if it is not, please make a new request. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

emailgulf.com[edit]

An annon user corrupts existing external links with this one. For instance, replacing "CAUCE" -- an established anti-spam organization. For example [48] and [49] --Mdwyer 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done I would suggest attempting to block the IP first, since it is on the English Wikipedia, I will consider suggesting this to be added to User:Shadowbot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
User comes from various IPs in 85.133.142.0/24 netblock. Unable to block by IP. I have requested an add to Shadowbot. Thank you! --170.131.131.254 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


reexamine.info[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=www.reexamine.info&limit=500&offset=0 - the site is currently 404 but hosts copies of the Watchtower and other Jehovah's Witnesses publications, without any distinction between those that are in copyright and those that are not. Since copyright goes for a minimum of 50 years from the death of the author, a large number even from the 1920s may contain material still under copyright. We have had at least one OTRS complaint, ticket 2007021310020955, complaining about links to copyright material on that site. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There are 287 of these links on en.wikipedia. I suggest maybe leaving a note at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses about the issue. I'm not sure who's going to delete these links; I suspect some deletions may be controversial, especially given that these are pages on religion.--A. B. (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a long blog entry from April 2004 about the history of this site:
The reexamine.info homepage consists of one sentence: "Closed for maintenance"
Waybackmachine.org's archives for reexamine.info redirect to reexamine.org:
--A. B. (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I just spotchecked one of the links -- notwithstanding the note on the homepage, the link worked (although it loaded at what felt like 14k modem speeds):
  • www.reexamine.info/60s/g68_Oct_8.pdf
    • Note: this is a 1968 publication still under copyright
--A. B. (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that it's under a DMCA takedown notice, and it's a dissenter's website being used as reference without explicitly stating that, I think it should be gone. Just zis Guy, you know? 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Has at least the english wikipedia been notified of this? en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. Its not really spam, but yeah it seems to me to be suspect, but this is something that can be fixed just by talking things through and (possibly) removing the links. We have to remember that this list is not only for the english wiki. Eagle 101 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I just left a note:
I suggest someone review it and clarify anything I may have misinterpreted. --A. B. (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of this? —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Definitely needs to go as a prolific violator of copyright (validated; not all are copyvios but it is clear they don't care), not sure whether it's counted as spam, though. Depends if you want ot be legalistic, I guess. Your call. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done - unless we continue to have issues, that can't be dealt with by normal admin tools, with this site. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


hai2u.com[edit]

Shock site. Example. --Slowking Man 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I need to ask this, do we have a standard to blacklist ever shocksite that we come across. As far as I have been thinking, I would just treat it as normal vandalism, unless we are getting multiple IPs or multiple wikis. I'm not sure though on what is appropriate for this, and I invite others to please comment. Thanks. Eagle 101 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Not done - at least till we have a standard of blacklisting every shock site. Now if this is getting spammed by multiple IP/user accounts that cannot be dealt with reasonably by normal admin tools then please re-post. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


pwp.netcabo.pt/jmmg/[edit]

This domain have a lot of subpages redirecting to "oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com" already blocked. See:

Note: don't block "pwp.netcabo.pt" That domain is for homepages of netcabo ISP clients. Block only "pwp.netcabo.pt/jmmg/" Mosca 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done site does not even list anything anymore. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


wikimouche.com, mouche.fr, gobages.com[edit]

Multiple IP are adding this links to french wikipédia (like here [50]). Is that possible to blacklist it? Thanks. --84.101.128.204 08:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you show some examples of spamming from these domains. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that there is a conflict between two french Wikipedia contributors about external links in the article "Pêche à la mouche". Resolution is in progress. Some persons think that wikimouche.com should be allowed in the article. 87.90.19.232 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Not done, if this is a real spam issue please demonstrate multiple additions from multiple IP/users that cannot be reasonably dealt with by normal admin tools. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


china-zeichen.de[edit]

This website is frequently added to articles like "Schriftzeichen", "Kanji" and others and is obviously optimised for google & partners without providing any content. --Chrislb 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done (for now) Please show me evidence of spamming. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


vintagepostcards.org[edit]

User was warned recently for promoting his own site. Changed username to make it appear he wasn't associated with this site, then went on to add links to his site to over 20 wiki entries. See his revision history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ccharned and recent warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ccharned

Not done - in a way, I"ve added this link to User:Shadowbot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nixeagle/Sandbox/AdditionsNotDone&oldid=937019"