Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-04

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

--A. B. (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC),

--A. B. (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  • AdSense ID: 8845896017192627

--A. B. (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted that - do we need to blacklist it? I'd be more inclined to leave it & blacklist if they persist.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  Declined - though we'll monitor it certainly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Six ignored warnings and a block just on en.wikipedia . They don't like his links on tl.wikipedia, either.[1] I think he's going to keep at it, Mike. --A. B. (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I missed an IP -- that's 5 more warnings and another block:

--A. B. (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  Added & will check what's going on with COIBot here...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Website hosting complete copies of copyrighted text with no indication of licensing., spammed by one of the same IPs, is in Vietnamese and may be similar in nature.



--A. B. (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I see only one edit outside enwiki - probably best to blacklist there if needed. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - missed some on viwiki.   Reverted &   Added.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ru-wiki - 1 (27 march), en-wiki - 2, es-wiki 3, fr-wiki 4, it-wiki 5, ja-wiki 6 (russian link in ja-wiki?). Spam. Zero Children 18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

COIBot report generated to study this request. The site is under maintenance ATM and I can't evaluate the content. —Dferg (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
From User:COIBot/XWiki/
  Reverted - note this has been blacklisted on ruwiki.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Link has been returned to ukwiki 1. Link have a illegal files (2 - "выдранный из японского 2ч трейлер в жутком качестве" - Rebuild of Evangelion 2.0 trailer). Link is spam (3). Onegai, add this link to spam list. Zero Children 04:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Google AdSense ID: 6572758616062898
Italian domain, Italian IPs.

Seven ignored warnings on en.wikipedia. Edits on other projects:

--A. B. (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Persistent, defiant spam problem on en.wikipedia and en.wikibooks.

Spammed links


on Wikibooks:

See this diff which states in no uncertain terms that s/he will keep inserting the link. --A. B. (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the archive. XWiki spamming by Mircd [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] already   added (\bmircd\.org\b) by Drini (talk · contribs · CA). Account already locked too. —Dferg (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Observed spamming cross-wiki with

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User replaces or adds large ammounts of nonsense texts. Already   Added the spammed link: \bladonia\.net\b to stop ongoing vandalism.

Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

URL shortener sites

For the archive: short URL sites used to circunvent our blacklists already   Added. Regards. —Dferg (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

URL shortener. MER-C 12:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  AddedDferg (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Biggest 57 wikipedias: 223 results: en (152), de (1), fr (4), pl (1), ja (1), nl (2), it (9), es (10), ru (1), zh (2), fi (1), eo (2), cs (4), tr (3), da (1), ro (1), ca (2), uk (1), hu (1), id (2), sl (1), lt (1), ko (1), et (1), gl (1), el (1), simple (13), ka (1), is (1), lb (1). Blocked at least in pt.wikipedia. By the way, LinkSearch in en.wikipedia shows 192 results and not 152 shown by crosswiki tool. It happens in other wikis too.

Mostly by

Some by

Main article for this external link is en:Super Ubuntu distro (previously deleted 2 times), it:Super Ubuntu (previously deleted once AfD page) and other programs included in that distro. External link is included in a lot of images descriptions like commons:File:Gnome-screensaver.png and en:File:Netscape9.png. Mosca 06:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to add this, but I'd like others' input first.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Support adding, no encyclopedial value. Finn Rindahl 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment The bot report was previously deleted as "false positive". I ordered COIBot to generate the report again to get more evidence. —Dferg (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  Comment Hi, I added some of the links to that site. giving a quick look at the report I think most of the "hits" are from pages of images, some are used on many international wikis (original image grabbed fom here) (I know that because I have uploaded many screenshots and updated the pages about the respective software on many international wikis), so it is natural there are "hits" on many wikis. There is a link on some (many!) of images uploaded by me because i "stole" them from that site - but don't get alarmed, i was carefull and asked persmission for that, and they said it was perfectly fine to use them and I could even upload them as my own (to avoid copyright problems due to copy screens from some site). Indeed the link was blocked on the PT-wiki, but no one never told me my link additions were not very good (not for that site and not for any other site). From what I can see here, most of the links on en-wiki are either talk pages, reference desk stuff, images (mentioned above), or user pages (my own sub-pages were articles are "cooked"). I have uploaded hundreds of images and also created many articles, and I have been even accused of being from VMware and Acronis (I do not even work yet!), simply because I contributed/created articles related to that... If required, I can stop linking to that site on my images, and simply say they are mine. I even told at PT-wiki I would not add external links to articles without at least discussing on talk pages, due to a user request. If someone want's to make any suggestions, or have questions about links I added, feel free to post at my en-wiki user page (I'm not very active on other wikis)
PS: I learned not to get stressed on wikipedia, but hope this does not labels my as some kind of spammer. Cheers SF007 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It just flashed over my head: Is this because it is a hacking site? I'm not a programmer, but I am familiar with the open-source culture, and "hackers" like RMS (Richard Stallman). I can't say 100% sure if that site contains hacking, as in "malicious hackers/crackers", but I can say I never found that kind of info there... Cheers SF007 21:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No, totally unrelated to hacking. It's about excessive linking. For one thing, you should never claim to be the copyright holder for images which are not your own work. If they've given you permissions to use them, then you need to send that along to OTRS. Beyond attribution for images, does this site have utility for our projects? Looking closer, I do see good content. However, it's largely encyclopedic or educational/how-to material which can and should be integrated either into the Wikipedia article, or on Wikibooks, where educational and how-tos are welcome. However, the links which are in content pages seem relevant, if not 100% appropriate. At present, my main concern is the situation with your image uploads. I think the domain can be left as-is for now, though I'd encourage the users adding links to it to please read the policies/guidelines for project where they're editing and consider whether adding links in this manner truly helps the project. I think it does not. As well, we will be monitoring in particular for IPs pushing the link.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  ClosedDferg (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)



Cross-wiki spamming to multiple language wiki projects:

The link is a search engine (using Google) for finding Italian and French wineries. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Barek,   Added. See also User:COIBot/XWiki/ Finn Rindahl 16:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

malicious sites

Malicious content sites, already   Added. Best regards. —Dferg (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam experiment

A couple of guys at Brown University have been performing an experiment in file sharing over 3rd party pages for a few months. They create pages large encrypted content on Wikis that don't belong to them with automatic bots. Just recently they have decided to prefix that data with a warning linking to their page. As of that wasn't enough, the pages are also encrypted so you don't really know what kind of illegal data they put there. I have been cleaning up after that experiment for so long, but now I can finally block it because they put in their URL which can be blocked. Please add to the list so we can get rid of this. I delete all of their pages, so I can't provide working examples, but the statements on their website seem more than enough reason to me. --Kichik 09:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - this is totally irresponsible & though (I assume) Wikimedia wikis are unaffected, third-party SpamBlacklist users will benefit from blocking the link.   Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 09:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

URL shortener. MER-C 12:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added, as a site that can be used to circunvent blacklists. —Dferg (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  •   Added JzG 20:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

URL redirectors

From the enWP blacklist.   Adding now as link redirectors. JzG 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like was already added here, so now it's there twice. Just pointing it out. Gavia immer 04:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
So it seems, I searched on the regex with \b at the end, the other listing does not have that. I don't know how that would affect behaviour, it does look as if links were possible before. JzG 15:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed the dupe.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Online game: players get extra points by recruiting new players, hence we're getting a lot of referral spam and spam articles.

Deleted pages created by various users:

Domain information:

Accounts adding these links or articles:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Evaldusia - deleted 4 times
  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed site:

  • Spammed subdomain:

  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:
  • Spammed subdomain:

--A. B. (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added --A. B. (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A post on my enWP talk page en:User talk:JzG raises quesitons about this domian, which appears to be all over some language projects. I checked it out a bit, it does not look to me to be an appropriate source, much of what is written has the look of personal essays. I don't know what action we can take here, but the request on my tallk page does seem to be made in good faith and to have merit as a call to action of some sort. JzG 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that the situation is dramatic also in the it.wikipedia, as more than 3.000 articles use such site as source, and most of the articles use that as ONLY source, which I find definitely not reliable (for several reasons, last but not least because is a privately-owned site which doesn't represent any official position or statement, unlike i.e. the Vatican City's official website). Blackcat 09:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There's also, another privately-owned site (biographies and agiographies of Saints). It's not an official website, nonetheless is hugely used as source. Blackcat 08:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is not a reliable source, it does have a disclaimer saying "This web site is not officially sanctioned or approved by any Catholic Church authority. The contents are purely the responsibility of David M. Cheney." so that the site doesn't really pretend to be more than it is. Judging which sources are reliable and which are not should be done by the editors of the article(s) in question, and I don't think we should (or could, given our current guidelines) blacklist such a site here. So I would decline adding this the blacklist, while still appreciating that the request was made in good faith and that the concerns raised are valid. Finn Rindahl 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Finn, meta can't start making binding decisions on all projects as to what is a reliable source through the blacklist. That is a decision that must be taken on a local level. I don't think it appropriate to add it to the blacklist unless it can be shown that it has been spammed massively across projects and that some projects have just been slow in removing all instances of it. I presume that isn't the case here? WJBscribe (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking at a sample article it:Diocesi di Abaetetuba it seems that the link to the site was present in the first revision of the page which was automatically generated by a bot.[2] I suspect that many other articles have the same characteristic. I see no evidence that there is any current spamming occuring, just mass insertion of material from a site which has amassed a lot of good information.--Salix alba 20:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The problem is that editors who make their best efforts to build reliable and accurate articles make also big efforts to find accurate and reliable source. Articles based on these sources are not reliable themselves, even because that site is very often the only source on which they are based. In my honest opinion blacklisting that source would push editors towards looking for a better source (possibly a definitely reliable one, like i.e. Holy See, or Catholic press or similar) or - as opposite - purge articles (excuse my English, am writing fast and have no time to review). Blackcat 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  Declined - the blacklist is not for making this sort of content decision. Maybe it's a good link, maybe it's not - but the issue we consider here is spamming.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector

Not quite the usual redirector blacklist request. The domain is a redirector, but is used by a few legitimate sites as a "clean" version of an otherwise messy URL and is also a blog service. That does not mean we should not blacklist it, but there are a lot of links. I've asked the original reporter on enWP to collect some for whitelisting, but this one is already being used to evade blacklists so we probably need to add it sooner rather than later. JzG 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added - blacklisting doesn't affect existing links, so cleanup can happen afterwards.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC) spam

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As well as, this is a domain (written in Italian) that has no sources, is composed mainly of personal essays and is not an official site related to any Catholic Church's institution. Nonetheless is used as source. Blackcat 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  Not done - This is a content issue, not a spamming issue.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Url shortener Track13 0_o 14:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

--A. B. (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

English Wiktionary and Wikipedia

--A. B. (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added --A. B. (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussions of this spam:
That's in addition to the 16 formal warnings the spammer received. --A. B. (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional domain spammed:

--A. B. (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added -A. B. (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Related domains:[3][4]

Also spammed:


--A. B. (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added -- all 8 additional domains. --A. B. (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Referral code: uid=204940

--A. B. (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  Added to the blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removals

  This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted. site is not for profit and wholly concerns the Mod subculture. i have added to Mod pages on Wiki in different languages (where similar links have also been placed). I edit the Modernist/Mod category on the 'Open Directory Project' as troublewithid - where you will also find 07:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As you were able to save this report, you can see it is not blacklisted here. Actually, I don't see any blacklisting anywhere at the moment. However, if I see the XWiki report linked from the LinkSummary template above, I would suggest you to stop, and read and listen to the concerns: For en.wikipedia: wikipedia is not a linkfarm, wikipedia is not a directory, the link fails the external links guideline, that other links are there does not mean that you have to add yet another one (just to be sure, you are not affiliated with the site, are you?. However, wikipedia is an encyclopedia which relies on content. That the site is non-profit is not an argument anywhere, commercial sites can even be more appropriate then non-commercial ones. Please don't add any more links, but discuss, e.g. on en.wikipedia with an appropriate WikiProject. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Nothing to remove,   ClosedDferg (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This website is not a spam, it´s the official website of a Spanish flamenco-singer. I therefore, would request that the site be de-listed from your blacklist. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

As you can see in the report, the link was being pushed cross-wiki. As a general rule, listing someone in such lists should happen if they have an article (ie applying the wiki's own standards for inclusion) - not using external links. I don't see any need to link to this domain as the dancer doesn't have any articles that I can see. If she does, then perhaps whitelisting for including the link there would be appropriate.   Declined  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the page from the black list

Hello, my request is for the release of page, before publishing it as a link to external pages in postage stamp, stamp collecting, etc.. I checked the conditions of use looking for something that prevents me, as I couldn't find anything i posted it, it's an philatelic auction page , but also a community and has many informative links as philatelic abbreviations, philatelic terms in different languages and philatelic items. If you can not put a direct link to the home because you think it's advertisement remove me from the blacklist of spam to put a link to the page sections which extend the terms above (postmark or stamp, stamp collecting, etc). Also I suggest that you warn of this in the edit page because it is not fair pages that can be useful and add further information are blocked by a misunderstanding. Or please let me publish this site in "Philatelic Auctions" in what seems to me that there would be no problem as there are links to other pages of philatelic auctions, that is what the term "Philatelic auction" means. If I can not put the address of this page, at least let me put his name on a list. Please anybody help me solve this problem or tell me the steps to resolve it because i am sure this is a mistake. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2009

Added per User:COIBot/XWiki/ I'm not inclined to remove this link from the blacklist. It's a commercial site (online stamp auctions) added by one user at four different wikimediaprojects, and while reverting the spamming was managable without blacklisting, the site does not add any content of encyclopedic value. Finn Rindahl 14:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But I don't want to put a link to the main page, if I did it before was because I thought that this was permited. I only want to create an article like this and for that I need to unlock the page name. Please, It's not for advertising, and the page has usefull information like a glossary with philatelic terms in different languages and philatelic articles.

You've been warned twice at enwiki and once at eswiki. You asked on enwiki about the removals and local admins said that this link is unuseful at all and fails WP:SPAM and WP:EL. In fact, your only contributions across all the projects have been adding the same link. I don't think the site should be deslisted.   DeclinedDferg (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Per OTRS ticket #2009040510037919, I am going to remove the blacklisting of The original request stated only copyright concerns. Since that is the only consideration & the company has licensed the content and/or copy-protected it in accordance with the copyright holder's permission, there is no reason to leave the domain blacklisted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Already   RemovedDferg (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I write for proposing that http://www(dot)fotosalhambra(dot)es be unlisted because I think it is a good resorce to find images about the Alhambra (

Best regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2009

Hello, looking (both) at the COIBot reports I'd tend to say declined at this moment. The link has been spammed across many projects. Regards. —Dferg (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  Declined  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 09:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems. and wikipedia template

I helped someone with a template over on English Wikipedia - en:template:modelref - and he asked me to make a reference to, which is on the blacklist. I'm trying to clarify how this works; can I use this site in the template, or should I just remove it? I don't get the sense that he's trying to spam WP; this seems like an honest attempt to include the site for a valid reason. please respond over at the template page or my userpage on wikipedia en:user_talk:ludwigs2. I don't get up to Meta that often. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not blacklisted here, but on en. I'll leave you a message on en. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Strike that, I should have looked better. Blacklisted after request [5]. Hmmm .. Now I am not sure what to do here, the site was blacklisted because it contained malware, not because it was spammed (I could not see proof of that either). Can someone check the site, and then de-list if it is fine? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I ran it through Google's Safe Browsing thingee - [6] - they say the site is not on their 'suspicious' list and that no instances of malware have been reported in the last 90 days. I don't know how good a check that is, though; malware testing is not really my 'thing'. --Ludwigs2 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fine -   Removed  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be blocked by a syntax error. It does not appear in the blacklist, but it is blocked globally. I want to link to Thanks, everyone... Mackerm 07:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's on the list (not a syntax error), it was added after this discussion in Novermber 2008. Regards, Finn Rindahl 07:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I disagree with that, but am too lazy to do anything about it. I hate to copy from another Wiki without being able to give credit. Thanks anyway. Mackerm 08:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Disagree copying from another wiki and being unable to cite it, have you read en:Wikipedia:General disclaimer? And why do you expect to be reliable? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  Progress report?. If nothing new is heard about this, the request will be closed in ~3 days from now. —Dferg (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See: was blacklisted in January, yet another link was recently added to en.wikipedia.[7] I have confirmed that this domain is on the blacklist here and is not whitelisted on en.wikipedia.

Am I missing something or is the blacklist filter not working correctly? --A. B. (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I added that as an example to bugzilla:13569.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems this was actually bugzilla:16610 (which is a special case of bugzilla:15582): the <ref> tag isn't closed and there is no <references/> on the page, so the link isn't actually included on the page.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

April 15

We've been getting this error today from the most recent blacklist:

  • Warning: preg_match() [function.preg-match]: Compilation failed: unmatched parentheses at offset 3526 in /var/www/html/wiki112/extensions/SpamBlacklist/SpamBlacklist_body.php on line 210

If you could take a look, it'd be appreciated. It is not due to our local blacklist, when I disable the wm blacklist, the error goes away.

--Tderouin 13:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You should probably ask about this in #mediawiki, which is the support channel for the MediaWiki software. I searched through the edits from April 10 to today and didn't find anything invalid; furthermore, our own wikis which use this list are unaffected. Thanks,  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting caught unintentionally by smut\.com\b and seems to be a reasonable site. Can we get a \b at the front of or something? (Originally requested at enwiki.) Stifle 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why is being caught when I tried to add it to a page (file sync software list). I tried to search the logs and couldn't come up with anything. Is this a mistake or am I doing something wrong? Thanks. Wikiphile1603 12:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not listed here, but on --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. I will look into it there. Wikiphile1603 15:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Since it is not blacklisted here, the request is   Closed. —Dferg (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User: namespace abuse

  This section is for archiving User: namespace abuse.


is adding his websites to his user pages. I've added


Could someone please help cleaning up? I've come as far as fiwiki at sulutil:Ystoystvo. FYI:   Added. --Erwin 09:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  Cleaned, and user reported to CVNBots. Perhaps the account should be locked? —Dferg (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  Locked  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


  This section is for archiving Discussions.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-04" page.