Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-07

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

spammed by

Fairly widely cross wiki & all reverted for now. Thanks Jorunn for some of that & the work of a good friend of mine who alerted me. Given the nature of it, probably listable, thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed &   Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Commercial billboard spam

Crosswikispam (six versions sofar) caught in the act MoiraMoira 11:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Moira -   Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)




--A. B. (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  Added --A. B. (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

grafiti spam



Caught in the act, five wikipedia versions spammed sofar. MoiraMoira 06:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the remaining one & there have been no more. I think Meta blacklisting at this stage may be premature. Thanks for catching it. Regards --Herby talk thyme 07:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See User:COIBot/XWiki/
I left a message on the talk page of the IP when the link was inserted on nn.wikipedia a few days ago warning them that if they kept inserting the link it could lead to blacklisting. The link was reinserted today, from the same IP.

Edits today:

--Jorunn 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks.   Done --Herby talk thyme 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Commercial vaporiser company spam

  • Already was active on several Wikipedia's tried wiki-nl today. MoiraMoira 13:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Given the long-term history and recent activity,   Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting.... Looks like a shoot out at the "vaporiser corral"! --Herby talk thyme 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
From w:User talk:Mike.lifeguard

Dear Lifeguard,

you have blacklisted linking to on vaporizer articles, which I believe is wrong as the website provides detailed information and comprehensive descriptions. I have exchanged a link repeatedly from a simply commercial platform to the manufactuer's site to maintain a source with more background than just "BUY THIS". Please reconsider blacklisting, as you can see in scientific articles being published the volcano vaporizer is an interesting device. Thank you ! Esender1 (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Esender1 +

This is related to earlier blacklisted link


The link was also inserted in de.wikipedia and ja.wikipedia today, after the link was removed there yesterday.

The link has been inserted by the same IP earlier too:

  • Google Adsense ID 4468137526996497

  • Google Adsense ID 4468137526996497

The IP has been warned: nn:Brukardiskusjon:

--Jorunn 22:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed thanks &   Added --Herby talk thyme 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fansite edit-warring on en, da and fi, lots of IP spammers. Also present on 20 other wikis. See w:WT:WPSPAM#James Last Not sure how to deal with this one (permanent link). MER-C 09:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - agreed. Fansites generally are inappropriate & warring fansites even more so.   Added --Herby talk thyme 09:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I generated the COIBot report for some extra information, that alone should have been enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I already added it to the blacklist because it's being spammed right now. However, there are quite a few links added by others. Therefore, I only reverted 79.205.*.*'s edits. I'm not sure if it really should be blacklisted. Any thoughts? Perhaps we should remove it in a week? --Erwin(85) 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't have much time currently to look in-depth, but remember that the blacklist now blocks only new additions of links, it does not prevent you from saving a page which already had that link. This means the links already in existence are "safe" and we only need to worry about whether there will be future need to link to this domain that cannot be managed effectively and efficiently by whitelisting.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Another case for global blocking. I agree we don't need to leave this blacklisted, but since pre-existing links are unaffected, there's no rush to remove it. Perhaps give it a week to get the point across.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  Removed  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

commercial typography spam

Spammed 13 wiki-versions on jul 1 2008. Kind regards, MoiraMoira 06:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Extensive cross wiki link placement. Needs sorting. I've removed some but out of time now. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
More IPs:

--Jorunn 22:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks reverted everywhere but dewiki. I've asked an admin to take a look - they can whitelist if there is legitimate use there.   Added I think, then.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing persistent cross-wiki spamming by multiple users and IPs of commercial sheet music provider. In some cases, free alternative sources were removed in the process of spamming.

en: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

de: [9] [10] [11] [12]

fr: [13] [14] [15]

it: [16] [17] [18]

ja: [19] [20]

and many more... -- 17:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and   Added. --Erwin(85) 08:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Commercial currency converter spam

  • Already was active on several Wikipedia's tried wiki-nl also. Active from 16/6 to 5/7 MoiraMoira 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed &   Added, thanks. --Herby talk thyme 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I consolidated your regexes into
 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Plus more, see the WikiProject Spam item.

Vandalism on English and Turkish Wikipedias. See (permanent link). The preceding unsigned comment was added by MER-C (talk • contribs) 12:18, 7 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour not appreciated -   Added. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dutch user that persistently tries to spam his Travian-tools site. 12:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - unimpressed by their on wiki approach.   Added --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian cross wiki spam

Cross wiki, many versions, active from 30/6 to today. MoiraMoira 07:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  Added, because of the excessive linking today. --Erwin(85) 07:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This address of a site about city Bendery (Moldova), was added on pages about city in different languages. At present it is a unique(sole) site bearing(carrying) the most complete information on city at all not containing advertising. For any strange reasons he was placed in Spam blacklist. I ask to remove this address from Spam blacklist, as the people can not receive the necessary information. Thanks -- 07:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No "strange reason". There was substantial cross wiki link placement as seen here. --Herby talk thyme 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity really. I've listed this domain (& not logged it so far). An IP created a page on Commons with a trailing "/" so often the sign of bot stuff with links to this site on. The toolserver was down so I could not check either Luxo or Eagle & I felt listing was better than being spammed. Now both are back on I can see no links to the site (top 30 wikis) nor any other relevant contribs.

The page is here but Commons admins only I'm afraid.

Should it stay listed or not?

Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for the COIBot report, guess we know it may be coming, so it is save to take it off and wait for COIBot to report more of this. But I am also fine with leaving it here. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that this needs logging or removing while I am away. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  Logged  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This url was removed from the blacklist in this edit. I belive this was by mistake.

Discussion of the link placement

Now en:user:Maqz has started inserting the link on en.wikipedia again.

--Jorunn 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was an error; re-added.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please add this, it's a URL shortener which has been used to bypass the local blacklist at dewiki. --Entlinkt 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this one should be reviewed. There has been quite a bit of link placement (think there may have been another bot report too - I seems to recall dealing with some links before). I spotted some links on en wp the other day & I've not had time to follow it up. Don't have strong views though I believe the linkage may be rather too great. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted a lot of it. The site does look somewhat useful, so I'm reluctant to blacklist it as well. I think   Not done for now, and we'll see what happens.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't added anything since I was warned by Herby in early June. Blacklisting my site seems a little harsh considering it's relevant, non-commercial, I've contributed updates to the wiki pages and regularly link to wikipedia pages. In fact, all of the blacklisted links for bike races, list host towns with links back to the wikipedia entries for each town. Why is my site a problem when a commercial site such as, which is listed on most of the same pages, is not? -- Steve July 14
Actually, this makes me more inclined to blacklist it. That said, I think you site is worth linking to - as long as you are not the one doing so. As long as that is true, and others are not spamming that domain, I am fine to leave things as-is.   Not blacklisted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. At least I'm honest about it. By the way, the commercial site is using shills to promote their site on most of the bike forums and judging by their wiki additions to the same pages I was on, they are now doing the same with wikipedia. -- 05:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Being commercial or not is not the concern here, the questions are "is it inappropriately pushed ('spammed')", and if so, "is it of use to the site (and how much of use is it ...)". If the first is yes (as I would argue here), and the second is no, then it blacklisting can be considered (even for non-commercial sites), but the latter is not the case here.
I count 15 additions of '' over the last 9-10 months, cross wiki, don't think that that is worth looking into at the moment. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

28x linkspam in 10 projects in about an hour See COIbot report, previous spamming has occurred.

--EdBever 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -   Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Added this to the spamblacklist to stop ongoing cross-wiki-spammer:

User added spam to talk of Upload (all his spam is already deleted). Example IRC-Log: Blacklist ms:User: used edit summary "Hacked By" in creating ms:Talk:Upload (+28950) URL: "HACKED BY SERSERİ77" which contained a link to

Maybe it has to be removed again. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I also added

because he does not stop (where is that global block) creating nonsense pages crosswiki. Andre deleted them all so far, cleaning everything behind him. These links have to be removed, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems clean now, and the vandal has stopped. I think removing from the blacklist is ok that this point.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is http://www.images on the blacklist?? It's just a picture hosting site. If one spammer used this site, that doesn't mean everyone on imageshack is a spammer... :( greets, de:Benutzer:Lynxxx-- 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This was a temporary measure to stop a spammer, and the domains have now been   Removed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that since these links have been removed he is continuing. xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogbullseye and other IPs (dynamic) in that range. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I temporarily added "" again since we are observing this right now and that link might affect less. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 10:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:(( - Perhaps worth leaving the .mp3 one blacklisted. I don't know that we can leave imageshack in there, as it does have a lot of legitimate use. Thanks for your vigilance, birdy. Perhaps someone else has a better option?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes :(( indeed. I would agree to leave the .mp3 listed, 57 looks clear for it. The other url is of course not an option, You are totally right, too many good links there. The better option would be global block of course, since this here was only a hack to stop him (did not work completely because he came back after a while and continued without adding links, but with less frequency). Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, well we'll leave the .mp3 one then.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to a Turkish website has been inserted cross wiki by various Orange France GPRS Network IP's the last days, links were also inserted cross wiki in December 2007/January 2008.


--Jorunn 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been more insertion of the link after I posted the above request for blacklisting:

  • Cross wiki link insertion:

  • Turkish Wikipedia only:

In Turkish Wikipedia there are 36 links, of those I found one to have been inserted by a registered user, the others were inserted by these Orange France GPRS Network IP's, who didn't add any content except the links:

--Jorunn 23:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be in use legitimately on many wikis, but no bot report is available currently. I am going to   blacklist now to stop the spamming, but this may need to be undone dependent upon further information being gathered.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the COIBot rapport there are 484 linkwatcher records. Among the links found through eagles linksearch I belive these can be legitimate:
--Jorunn 23:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - did you remove the other uses, or shall I comb through them?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the others, except those on tr.wikipedia, and maybe some in the smaller wikis that didn't show up in either eagles linksearch nor on any of the IP searches. The website is supposed to be Turkish language, maybe the links are useful there? Anyway, I didn't feel comfortable removing 35 links there. --Jorunn 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've asked one of the administrators on tr.wikipedia to have a look at the links there. --Jorunn 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like trwiki doesn't want the links either - they're all gone. I'm going to   add this - whitelisting can be requested where needed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This portuguese spam was reported at eswiki: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]... but has also been spammed on frwiki; [28] [29], [30], [31], dewiki and probably others. Platonides 17:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted &   Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
RE2: Why this spamer hasn't been yet baned?
File:Smile2.png --Rizome 02:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Global blocking is not enabled yet.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


--A. B. (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC) --A. B. (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  Added --A. B. (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinions wanted:

Spam domain


This is a prolific Internet-wide linkspammer[32][33] whose disruptive pattern on en.wikipedia has been to spam a spammy paragraph into the middle of unrelated pages including this high profile page.[34]

Given the breadth of spamming elsewhere on the Internet, I'm suggesting this domain for blacklisting here in spite of there being no evidence of spamming yet on other WMF projects and MediaWiki wikis. I've already blacklisted it on en.wikipedia

What do the rest of you think?

I'm traveling and will have a hard time following up on this -- please just go ahead and add or decline as you see fit. --A. B. (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To me - of no real value.   Added --Herby talk thyme 13:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Powerlevelling spam

XRumer-like spamming, blatant vandalism. Confined to at the moment, but these domains have absolutely no value to Wikimedia projects. See w:WT:WPSPAM#Powerlevelling spam (permanent link). MER-C 07:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed &   Added --Herby talk thyme 13:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet an other URL shortener used abusively:

The title says all, but a spammer on en.wp used this one to get around the spam blacklist, I guess everyone would benefit from the removal. :) -- lucasbfr talk 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes -   Added thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removals

  This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted.

I don't why this site is on the black list and I think it should not be there. Greetings from Germany -- 15:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The site was listed as a result of cross wiki link placement reported here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a very useful site.--Cato 11:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Due to past problems with excessive linking to this domain, I do not believe this request should be fulfilled. We de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. If such a situation arises, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and this domain may well be removed.
Until such time, this request is   Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Link with

I have noticed that all links with have been removed on pages devoted to Mr. Kamanda in different languages (even in French!). This is actually the most complete site on this author and his work, and it is devoted to students, professors and researchers, not at all for a commercial purposes. Why?

I reverted cross-wiki link additions because of this bot report - it seems a single user was inappropriately adding that link to many Wikipedias. Pushing a single link is not appropriate regardless of whether the link is commercial - it is the behaviour here that is of concern.  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike.lifeguard, OK, I understand now. I did not know that putting the same link in different pages was not appropriate. I was just considering the usefulness of the link regarding Kamanda's work and the goal of giving as much information as possible to the readers. Could the link be put back at least in the French page, considering it's a French speaking author? The other links give far more uncomplete information on the topic. CMThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Christiane.melancon (talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 June 2008.

I would say it is an appropriate link for frwiki, yes.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How can I put the link back then? I have tried, but it doesn't work. – Christiane.melancon 14:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I imagine Mike is suggesting that you request whitelisting at fr wp. The page you need is here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 06:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I had intended to clarify that, but got distracted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The site was spammed by

I temporarily added the site already, because the user was creating empty pages with that link only cross-wiki. (Many might have been deleted already). Maybe the link has to be removed again, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks possibly worth removing to me - anyone else think so?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm in two minds here. The "emergency" listing was exactly correct and consideration for removal is right. However, after looking the site has no relevance to any project and the behaviour is such that they may try again. View welcome. --Herby talk thyme 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I must say I agree with Herby here, which is why I hesitated to remove it the next day already... I have not added it to the log yet though, I will do that as soon as it is clear what do to here :) Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it might be marginally useful, but given the history here I'd be fine to leave as-is, and log it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  Logged then.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Link with

I'm not sure why I cannot add this site to my new page Tokyo Prostitution. It provides a good perspective in the area of prostitution in Tokyo. The only site I added it to was Japan Prostitution, what I thought was relevant. There has been no other adding or spamming - so it this considered "widespread, unmanageable spamming"? (the stated cause for blacklisting) Thanks. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 Jul 2008 (UTC)

OK - first of all it is not blacklisted here. However, looking at your contributions of Wikipedia they consist of link placement only. Such behaviour is likely to be seen as "spamming". Certainly if you continue doing so I would imagine you will be blocked &, ultimately, your site may be blacklisted here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This was previously discussed in this archived talk page more than a year ago, but it was denied with the comment "Not done - unless jimbo changes his mind :D" Considering the time that has passed, and the original illegal reason for upholding of the block, I felt it was useful to bring it up again.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia is supposed to be relatively democratic, no? I can see if Jimbo had more pull than the average Wikipedian, but Jimbo seems to have given no reason for the block (at least none in the changelog, and none in the linked discussion) and nobody came forward in the previous discussion with a good reason for the block. To me, and to nearly all the people in the previous discussion, there is no rational reason to block It contains a great deal of useful first-hand information created by and about all sorts of notable people. Bands, celebrities and regular joes all have MySpace pages, and all my include information in their personal blog which could be useful as a source.

If you'll look at the EN whitelist request page, 6 of the 17 request are currently for MySpace blogs, so it's obviously resource people would like to use.

Certainly there is bad information on MySpace, but so too is there bad information on all the web. People claim MySpace is unverifiable or too personal a communication to be included in Wikipedia, but it's just as verifiable as Joe Blow celebrity's homepage (maybe more so, since the MySpace page is often updated more frequently than official homepages,) which we consider perfectly OK to link to. I see no reason why MySpace blog references can't be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; contested if wrong, removed if non-notable, banned if actual spam. Just because it's a popular page doesn't mean it should suffer. It may host a large amount of bad information, but only because it hosts a large amount of information in general.

Unless I'm overlooking some bylaw, subsection 12, paragraph 3, I can see no reason to block other than the unjustified caprice of Jimbo, the indulgence of which would go against everything Wikipedia stands for -- not to mention hurt a reputation already sullied by accusations of cliquishness and insider dealings. — Magicmat 11:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing this would be a dreadful idea. At present blogs have to be whitelisted to be included, which keeps the flood manageable. You have no idea how much blog spam we have to clean up, I think all the major blog hosts should be blacklisted due to long-term abuse as "sources", spamming, attacks and all manner of other nonsense. JzG 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that removing this would be a terrible idea. Surprisingly, I acutally agree that we should consider blacklisting some of the major blog & free hosting services so that inclusion must be determined on a case-by-case basis (or wikis which prefer allowing unrestricted additions of these domains may whitelist them entirely). Geocities, for example, is really not something we should be linking to for references or links. This would of course require significantly more discussion and cross-wiki participation than most blacklisting we do, so I'd invite comments from the regulars before considering whether to solicit external opinions on this.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree here, whitelisting is the way to go, that keeps the flood manageable. Blog-sites are a big problem on many pages, on en-wiki quite a number of them are on XLinkBot's revertlist. Putting them on the blacklist and request specific whitelisting may be a good way. That a link exists does not mean that it has to be included NOW, in a couple of days is also fine, which would give time to whitelist the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If only XLinkBot were elsewhere too...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Link with

Hey there, this site is blacklisted since May 22nd on Ani Difranco related articles. It is a the most active fan site about this singer on the net. Please consider removing the blacklisting. See user:COIBot/XWiki/ Thanks and sorry for not being 100% how to post comments. Moogz The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moogz (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Fan-forum. If specific links are useful somewhere on a wiki, I would consider asking for whitelisting of a specific url on a specific wiki. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
To me the default setting for fansites is that they are not required (mainly because you could get a massive flood of then legitimate links as anyone & everyone creates fansites). Certainly locally whitelisting where a community approve would seem the best approach. --Herby talk thyme 09:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Moogz So linking to our concert and setlist database would be more appropriate for example? Moogz 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Our concert and setlist database? You may want to review e.g. en:Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest (quite some other languages have a similar guideline). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  Declined I think. Fansites not usually appropriate & a COI issue as well. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The web really isn't any spam, could you remove it from the list of blocked pages? PAJD,

The main reason for blacklisting this site is the excessive linking. Besides that, I don't think the site is very useful for other languages. Therefore, I'm reluctant to remove it. You could consider whitelisting the site at cswiki. --Erwin(85) 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  Declined then - you can request whitelisting at w:cs:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

paris hilton and any Paris Hilton related pages

You shouldn't blacklist my sites, or indeed anything related to them. I feel there is no need for you to blacklist them. Gawd, I'm not a spammer. What do you take me for?? Oh, and one more thing, these sites should never be blacklisted anywhere. --Paris Hilton 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing this is a serious request. Do others feel we can disregard this one (note that the account is blocked currently).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Domains are not being removed from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, sites are de-blacklist 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. --Jorunn 23:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
User now blocked I see. Equally they appear to have been active on de wikis & I am not aware of that linguistic ability for this person.   Declined --Herby talk thyme 09:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was this link deleted? This website provides valuable information to people interested in the football club. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Not blacklisted - where was it removed from (which page & which wiki). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an xwiki report from COIBot. I think Mike.lifeguard reverted the additions. Site may be appropriate on en, not sure if it has to be everywhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that it was added all at once by a single user, I did revert the additions. That does not mean it is totally inappropriate for inclusion, just that the manner in which it was being included was not for the benefit of the projects. If you wish to include it on somewhere, you may do so as long as it's addition is in line with whatever policies and guidelines there are on the subject, and you are adding it to improve the wiki (and no other reason). As this is not blacklisted, there is nothing further for us to do here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, I disagree. The club has many French, German-speaking people looking to find out info about the club. As there is no CFR website in French or German, people tend to look for one that is in the international language (English). By having a link to the only CFR English website in the articles, anyone who is interested in the club can find out more detailed informantion in a language that they can actually understand. By the way, what exactly are the policies and guidelines on the subject?

P.S. Herby: the article is on CFR Cluj

Why is the azeri version of Google on the blacklist ? Is it possible to remove it ? I noticed it while trying to edit fr:Discuter:Heydär Äliyev. Moumine 13:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Relevant edits are by Thogo and Nick1915, after a request. Although there was inappropriate linking, this looks like it could be removed to me.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  Removed then.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) is an independent not-for-profit educational programme, with no affiliation to any political or religious group dedicated to the research, protection, preservation of the pre-Islamic Iranian civilisation.

CAIS was established in 1998 by Shapour Suren-Pahlav and Oric Basirov (Department of Art and Archaeology), under the name of "Ancient Iranian Civilisation at the School of Oriental and African Studies" (AIC at SOAS) and later changed to "The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies" (CAIS at SOAS) of the University of London, to act as a forum for the exchange of information about the art, archaeology, culture and civilisation of Iranian peoples. CAIS no longer has any affiliation with SOAS.

The mission of the Circle is to expand understanding and appreciation of pre-Islamic Iranian heritage as achieved through systematic investigation of the archaeological and historical records.

The Circle seeks to promote and increase the existing body of knowledge relating to this important area, laying particular emphasis on providing up-to-date information to students, academics and cultural enthusiasts about current Iranian and international research projects and fieldworks."

So why is it black-listed?-- 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Has been added in June 2008, per request. Strike that, no that was another one, can't find it yet. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here it is:

it was done by Dmcdevit in May 2007, per this evidence, part of this thread. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • As far as I recall it was used to support distinctly non-neutral edits and as a source for copyright violating images, I also seem to recall a significant volume of apparently COI link additions but I could be wrong about that. I don't believe there is such a paucity of neutral sources that we would need this one, the request seems largely to address a desire to promote the site rather than a genuine wish to improve the encycloipaedia. JzG 14:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    Given the history here, I think this one is   Declined. We should not be linking to sites which routinely violate copyright. Please choose a different site for citations and links.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC) is somehow on the spam list for wikipedia. I don't know why it is there and I don't know or care if there is an article which could link to All I know is that is not a spam website and does not deserve to be listed in a spam list. Either name that section "sites we do not like" or take out of that spam list, since it negatively effects the reputation of an almost 10 year old project. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

The link was blacklisted after I requested it here. It was blacklisted because someone had started a project inserting links to the mentioned website, and its sister websites, into Wikipedia articles about newspapers in various countries.
There is a proposal to rename the list. --Jorunn 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Due to past problems with excessive linking to this domain, I do not believe this request should be fulfilled. We de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. If such a situation arises, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and this domain may well be removed.
Until such time, this request is   Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am Swusr on English Wikipedia, and I want to use articles from this website as references for the article Vasili Eroshenko on English Wikipedia. But when I try to do so, I cannot link to it because it is blacklisted. Swusr 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted after this at enwiki, and requests for de-listing have come in periodically - all have been declined [35][36]. This site is not appropriate for use as references or links; please do not do so.
Due to past problems with excessive linking to this domain, I do not believe this request should be fulfilled. We de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. If such a situation arises, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and this domain may well be removed.
Until such time, this request is   Declined. Again.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add the external link http://www.holocaustresearchproject .org/ghettos/riga.html (Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team: The Killings at Riga) to a page. What is the reason that this domain is at the blacklist? SchirmerPower 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The link was added per request. Is the site more accurate now? I for one can't judge that. Not sure about removing, so I'm leaving this to someone else. --Erwin(85) 11:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I am baffled why this was ever blacklisted. It is well-written and seems to be accurate. It should be removed at once.--Cato 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The logic behind the original listing is as linked by Erwin and seems to have been perfectly valid. The lost appropriate course of action would be to get hold on some en wp (or other languages) editors with knowledge of the subject to assess whether it can now be considered a reliable source. Until such opinions are given de-listing may be premature. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So it's been declared a non-reliable site on the basis of criticism on a blogspot? And why should I be presumed not to have knowledge of the subject? I repeat that the Riga page seems to be accurate.--Cato 12:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what the history is only that it was decided it was unreliable. My understanding was that you were not active on Wikipedias and so I suggested looking for some from en (or other) wikis for their views - is that so unreasonable? In practice almost nothing gets removed from here "at once" as you will see if you run through the archives. Mistakes apart some time for input from others is the normal practice here. Other views are very welcome indeed. --Herby talk thyme 13:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that because I mainly edit EN:WQ I wasn't in a position to comment in an area where in fact I have some expertise, and that the views of people active on EN:WP or some other WP would be needed.--Cato 14:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it -maybe- possible to exclude the "Riga" page from the blacklist until the rest of the domain is cleared? SchirmerPower 08:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest in the short term you look for local whitelisting if this is inconveniencing you. I'm guessing "de" is the appropriate wiki for you &, if so, you would ask here. Equally then if you want an aspect of the site still unavailable you can seek blacklisting of that specific url locally too? I hope that helps for now. Regards --Herby talk thyme 10:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I will ask there for putting the link on the local whitelist. SchirmerPower 11:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked round the site, and it seems very good. Why it was blacklisted in the first place seems odd, and I cannot see that continuing the blacklist can benefit the project. (CoI: I lost several relatives in the Holocaust.)--Yehudi 08:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there was a legal battle between two sites with very similar names, which had what to do with the prevention of either from being used. The actual discussion is somewhere in the OTRS archives. -- Avi 06:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  • That was / JzG 12:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that this has been discussed previously and declined based on the circumstances (ie failing w:en:WP:RS) at the time.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  •   Not done. The penny just dropped: this is Carmelo Lisciotto's site, see, also note [37]. He's the guy behind the deathcamps / death-camps nonsense. We can do without his sites (and his endless emails to OTRS), thanks all the same. JzG 13:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • So my instincts were right   -- Avi 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! About a year ago i spammed wikipedia with a link to a site about Faroe Islands (Denmark) in the 'Faroe Islands category' in many languages. At that time I did not think of it as spam. Now, a year later, the site has got a 'Virtual Tour' from the Islands. This is really useful for tourists. So I kindly ask you to remove it from the blacklist? I would like to add the link in

The site has got several incoming links from great official sites too. Some of the most important links: - Atlantic Airways - Smyyril Line (Ferry to Faroe Islands):

/Kasper Solberg

The link was blacklisted after I requested it here, 7 November 2007. I requested the link blacklisted because of the widespread insertion of the link, including reinserting it sevral places after it had been removed (the IP you used was blocked in 3 wikis for spamming).
Domains are not being removed from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, sites are de-blacklist 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.
If the link is wanted on da.wikipedia it can be locally whitelisted there, on da:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (Siden den lokale hvitlisten ikke er i bruk på da.wikipedia ennå er det kanskje lurest å henstille om hvitlisting på da:Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden. Men vær klar over at mange Wikipediautgaver har regler som sier at man ikke skal legge inn lenker til egne nettsteder. Retningslinjene fro eksterne lenker på da.wikipedia ligger her.) --Jorunn 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  Declined; request whitelisting.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Following a mail from Mr. Guy Chapman we would like to request removal of from the blacklist . If there is anything needed to be done by us regarding the removal , please kindly let us know . Best Regards Avi

This was blacklisted by request based on this mass of evidence. You can also see evidence of past excessive linking here. I'm not sure whether Guy will have some input here - he's welcome to add his voice as always.
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 value in support of our projects. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your domain may well be removed.
Until such time, this request is   Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I advised that this was the place to make requests, but I don't see the benefit of these links. I could not find the log of the requests, which you neatly identify above, thanks, or I'd have pointed the site owner to that and perhaps saved you a few minutes. JzG 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh it's no problem. I thought you may have had info we didn't.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that the requesting IP added a link to he.wikipedia shortly after his request here.[38] --A. B. (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mike, You have black listed my website in fr.wikipedia on the article "Jeu de Nim" without taking care of the discussions started on this article, and without any answers. Is it possible for you to change it, this wasn't spam, this was two differents points of view discussing. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 05:03, 16 July 2008.

Actually, I removed only one link from that article, and blacklisted the domain after User:COIBot/XWiki/ If frwiki thinks it is worth linking to, you may request whitelisting locally at w:fr:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
Due to past problems with excessive linking to this domain, I do not believe this request should be fulfilled. We de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. If such a situation arises, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and this domain may well be removed.
Until such time, this request is   Declined.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 10:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also put a request on [39] in french.

Hello, Our site has been blacklisted for over a year now due to a silly action of one of my employees who thought he was doing good "SEO" work (original blacklist [40] and discussion with A. B. here).

Despite my previous requests [41] I was denied when asked to be removed from the blacklist. Today after over a year, we have a growing information center and some of our articles are available under the GNU Free Documentation License.

I have seen that an editor used one of our articles to create a diamond flaws article on wiki which is great to know that wikipedian values our content and the fact that no other wikipedian has opted to remove the article suggests to me that it is worthy to be in wikipedia. I would like to ask once more to be removed from the wikipedia blacklist because we are a useful resource to wiki and we are working hard to become the web's diamond information center with high quality articles from diamond labs and professional diamond dealers. I also decided to start and contribute on wikipedia as Daveletter.

Thanks for the consideration. Dave 11:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your site seems not to meet our requirements for inclusion. Given past issues with spamming, I see no reason to remove the domain from our blacklist.
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 value in support of our projects. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your domain may well be removed.
Until such time, this request is   Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently added links to to different luxembourgish language entries. The site was blacklisted after the COIBot generated a report suggesting a potential conflict of interest. I appreciate that it is essential to automate this process if conflicts of interest are to be prevented. I also appreciate that trust is established by being a regular contributor to wikipedia projects. However, I added as a link because I genuinely believe that the site contains content that is valuable to users of wikipedia who want to learn more about the luxembourgish language.

As a minority language, there are few sites currently available with resources on luxembourgish. There are none I could find with resources in languages other than English or French. As a bilingual site I assumed was the most valuable to speakers who understand (some) English or French.

I believed that the link would be given consideration by other contributors who would judge the site on its merits and remove the link if they found it less valuable than I believe it to be. I do not believe that my actions constitute a conflict of interest. However, if you believe that the site is not valuable to users of wikipedia then I will respect your decision to remove the link and will not attempt to challenge your decision further. 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to demonstrate that I have made similar legitimate contributions (including Luxembourg and Luxembourgish): User Contributions 14:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

COIBot showed that you were adding that link to a number of wikipedia, and that is where the concern lies. I don't think that the link is of interest on all the languages it was added to (on en, we are not an not an internet directory (and actually, movies on the site are on youtube, and the site is quite small). It does not add that much info, just a few basic greetings etc. I tend to decline this. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry for raising your concern by posting a link to the website on different luxembourgish language entries. If the website is not useful then I will not link to it again. 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

  Declined per Beetstra. --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

i would like to add a link to w:Volcano Vaporizer. it is the official product page on the company's site, and gives information on the different models, components, technical details, etc etc. i checked the archive search tool but can't find any reference to storz-bickel, so i have no idea why it was blacklisted to begin with. --Kingnixon 21:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

as a sitenote, i had a lot of trouble writing this here, because the blacklist filter kept getting set off, and i had to edit out, for example, the actual link i want to add. shouldn't there be an exception for this page? otherwise it seems like it would make discussing the issue at hand pretty difficult. --Kingnixon 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree this link should be allowed on the Volcano Vaporizer article. 02:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Commenting here after the case was brought to en:WP:HD#blacklist. A connection from the company ( was used to add the link a lot of times to a number of articles 1. The previous (denied) request for removal 2 was from an IP that only made edits to articles related to the product. And both the IPs locate to Berlin - Germany 34. Seems like a conflict of interest, with the risk that more spam will follow after removal from the blacklist. But a link in that specific article seems justified. Species8473 02:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I must correct usage of the IP, as it were just and an account Esender1. Also here is the archive entry of the blacklist entry: Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008/07#Commercial_vaporiser_company_spam --Species8473 03:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
if you think taking it off the blacklist would lead to more spam, i have no problem with it staying on. but could it be removed for like 5 minutes so the link can be added to w:Volcano Vaporizer, where i think it just blatantly belongs? --Kingnixon 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that in this case, it is best to request whitelisting of specific links for specific pages on the wikis where they have to be used. As such,   Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.


poking COIBot

I notice that sometimes people who are not active on IRC need some link reports. Admins here can now add {{LinkSummary|domain}} to User: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 Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't overuse the functionality, everything still needs to be saved. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorting - UTC

The COIBot reports now are/should be sorted by time, newest records at the bottom. The newer records are now stored in UTC, and there is a bot busy with converting the time of the old records to UTC. When the time is in UTC, it will show ' (UTC)' behind the timestamp. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-07" page.