Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-09

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

Lots of spam on strategywiki.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this a cross wiki issue? --Jorunn 10:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it's a temp addition until I can get ahold of Phillip (or someone else who runs the wiki).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. --Jorunn 00:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
&   Removed now.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Spammed on

Basically, Zepceteam added it on nearly every project where an article on w:Žepče exists. He's currently socking as w:en:User:Sephirotix on enwiki (and bswiki) where he's trying to get User:Seha punished by the enwiki arbcom for actions taken against blocking his IP range at bswiki. Can we nip this in the bud now?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

God yes, we can nip it in the bud -   Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
LoL THX Mike for nipin´:) --Seha 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please blacklist This link is used to get round the blacklisting of

spamming on en:Tarot, One more on en:Tarot

--Jorunn 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  Added — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector/shortener. 13:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

referral domains

{{linksummary|}} already blacklisted

and the associated 2 payment sites {{linksummary|}} already blacklisted

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector/shortener. 13:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Added. Thanks. --Erwin 14:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Url shortener. Track13 0_o 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Added df|  07:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

HUB 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  Añadido, gracias HUB. df|  08:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector/shortener. 22:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See also en.MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist case

Crosswiki spam

. Thanks, --Hu12 15:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector/shortener. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector/shortener. 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added df|  10:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Famke's spam

We've seen this one before.

{{linksummary|}} already blacklisted

{{linksummary|}} already blacklisted

{{linksummary|}} already blacklisted

Famke isn't a global account, so I already indefblocked it on most wikis. Remaining unblocked:

  • dewiki
  • enwikisource
  • frwiki not the same user
  • nlwiki not the same user
  • plwiki not the same user
  • simplewiki
  • sourceswiki

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector/shortener. 12:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added. Thanks! --Erwin 12:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Xaman79 spam



Apparently socking to spam travel/tourism sites. I'm not sure if any of these need to be blacklisted at this point, but putting it up for investigation & consideration.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed (official site for the community), (official tourist info), which are "legit". is not DNS'd to any site, but (suggested by Google Chrome) is an official site for a portuguese government agency (Regional Development and Coordinating Commission of the Algarve). looks to be a website for a newspaper or something. (and forum.-) is a browser game, nothing related to Portugal or Algarve so far ;-)
All the other links seem commercial.
Alphos [bother me] 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


See also WikiProject_Spam case

redirect to

Iframe to

Cross wiki spamming

I've omitted the en.wikipedia accounts, as they can be found in the link to the case above. Thanks, --Hu12 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector/shortener. 13:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added df| 13:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See en:User_talk:Brandon#Desiphral and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Desiphral/Archive; there is a massive sock ring adding this spam link to articles in many wikipedias for pay. Triplestop 03:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just brought this up on IRC, I have a list of like 10 different links he was spamming. Brandon 03:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Other domains:

{{linksummary|}} I don't think we need to blacklist this domain.

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see [1] and [2] for further info. As Desiphral is a sysop, the matter is also being discussed on stewards-l.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
At [3], we see that Desiphral profited from the spamming.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

4 referral/redirect domains

Examples [4][5][6]. thanks--Hu12 16:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

added another,[7][8]--Hu12 17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Added the 4th. are redirects from outgoing links placed in MySpace profile comments. --Hu12 18:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector/shortener. 10:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added df| 11:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

I'm looking for a discussion, when it was blacklisted. I'm surprised that I can't find anything... only this by a bot en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/

Hi, I'd like to clear this this from the list.

It's one of the biggest reference about comic strips published by fr:Soleil Productions (and also others). This site talk about many comic strips, and is it abnormal to see it often ? ... What to say more ? Just read this site...

Well, the site is written in french... if other wikipedia don't need or don't want to have this links to it, then block it. But unlock this site for France at least, we need it. The site is still living, and is still interresting for France. -- (Richard ) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The domain isn't blacklisted here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry. It's blacklisted here. I think i should go there -- 09:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm lost, you could help me a bit to know where to go ? -- 09:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps i see the problem. I forgot a "L" in "askell", it's "" and it's blacklisted here. Can you unlock it, please. -- 09:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I had a bit of a look, there is no real discussion, but what there is is here. The first reviewer of that autoreport says that it looks appropriate, the second blacklisted it when there were more additions.
If I review it, and see it in the light of how and where it was added (3 wikis, by far the most on fr.wikipedia), I am a bit worried, and would like to hear more about this. I see e.g. a series of additions like this edit took place on fr.wikipedia, and those were locally reverted (way before the blacklisting). In that edit, a link to the domain itself was added, not to a specific page which corresponds to the subject, at the top of the list. Your IP also is close to some of the (several) IPs which were used to add these links. I would suggest you contact some local editors about this (e.g. on the fr.wikipedia), and see what they think. Until then, here   Declined. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I am only counting two wikis, I see two attempt to add links to the de wikis and the rest on the fr wikis. The problem is that those links can be pertinent to the articles they were added. The diff mentionned earlier is rather strange: an unofficial link stays while the official one is removed... I know some editors are against 'commercial' links, but this is an editing issue. Could the meta blacklist entry be transferred to the de wikis and the fr wikis, so it can be discussed there locally (at least on fr, I don't think the de blocks would need to be lifted, since the linked content are in french and not pertinent)? Thanks in advance.esby 21:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it'd be more prudent to figure out why this was added in the first place. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think i need to be bold, here are the ips that added the 'links'.
User: => neuf telecom provider.
User: => club internet isp.
User: => club internet isp.
User: => libertysurf (free.Fr) 56k provider.

User: => proxad ( adsl provider. located in per92 (near Paris), our current ip here is located in lib33 (near Bordeaux). 
Also there were 35 added links, only 6 of them were pointing to the main site. The rest could be considered as appropriate.
Honestly, I'd also like to know why this was added to the meta spamlist and more importantly kept there...
(before some ask, I ain't the ip who asked here first.)
esby 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it was on fr, de and en. What I saw in a quick scan was that a couple were also immediately reverted on fr.wikipedia. I really suggest that you first try to whitelist it on fr, blacklisting it locally on the other wikis is a bit the wrong way around, and difficult to achieve. I hop this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

'difficult to achieve'? Copying one line over three wikis is difficult? Letting them handle the issue if they want is difficult?
That the issue two years ago was solved with adding the site to the meta blacklist is one thing. Now this ain't a malicious spam or any kind of attack, just some random adding by a few forumers. They are not going to swarm all the existing wikis to add the given url massively... (they are not incredibly stupid yet...) What options do we have? Create exceptions for each articles that on the fr whitelist that could benefit from it?(more than 30-40?, this is probably easier from the meta point of view, but this does not help.) Are we going to meta blacklist any kind of site that could be linked by a few (organized) ips? esby 21:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This site blacklist have been made with blinkers... amazing -- 19:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I want to say some things that you seem to forgot :
  1. A link to the main page doesn't mean there are no reference and doesn't mean it must be deleted. Most of this links were placed as external links, it's only bad linked refenrences. Yes, i agree, it should be better to link directly to articles in particular.
  2. You give fase argument, only few have been linked to the main page.
  3. About the links reverted in france : Happy to see Dirk Beetstra shows and talks about this revert "done without explanation"... I had allready made busyness with this guy, not so long ago... He is the kind of guy who revert things without trying to understand what he does (and don't contribute to the comic strip project). I show you an annoying discussion where i tryed to make him understand some really basic things : look here (in french)
  4. Foreigner wiki reverted this links certainly because and only because they can't or don't know to read french regardless of the content
  5. The content of the site is important useful and needed, you don't even talk about or think about content !
There is also the possibility to prevent locally those IPs to spam links everywhere. I don't even know if someone said them something about what they did.
We're still waiting for you to unlock it from the blacklist... If you other wikiproject don't need this link, WE DO in France... So put it it in the whitelist, that we can use it en France only. This situation leads me to say that I don't care about others wiki projects. The management of the situation really sad. - Richard -- 09:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you're frustrated. If you need to add links on frwiki immediately, feel free to add the domain to the whitelist. Before removing the domain here, we will want to figure out why it was added initially so we can re-evaluate that reason. I'm afraid that process isn't instantaneous - if it is taking too long you are free to help.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting a little nervous. Ok, i understand you do your job and need to wait more time for checking... I'm going to see how to whitelist locally, for now. -- 19:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant was, that the link was first added in a series on fr.wikipedia (in 2007), and reverted by a local, French editor (who reverted a whole series). After that there were more additions, and for example an addition in January 2008 was also removed (not reverted) by a local, French editor (not the same as the previous one), remarking that the site is not official (site non officiel). So of that series, there are 2 local editors reverting it, and disagreeing about its use. Later additions are either still there, or removed, again by local editors, and additions continued until the end of 2008.
Then seen that 5 differing IPs added together 39 of the 44 links of which I have record (and as I said, one of the others is an unrelated revert, not a thoughtfull addition, I expect another one to be the same). That certainly sets of a spam radar.
I did not remove any (heh, I even added one in an unrelated revert), and as far as I can see, no-one here did. It was apparently (as the blacklisting admin is not participating here) not deemed useful (both locally and here), and hence blacklisted.
Regarding, blacklisting on a couple of local wikis: that is more difficult, as most of us are just admin on a couple of local wikis, and here. For example, I can't add something to the German blacklist. When more wikis are involved, this is a more obvious option, to avoid that we have to run after a spammer (which in this case may not have happened, but for other links it might) blacklisting it everywhere. Blacklisting here protects the other projects. It is diffucult to foresee where it is ending, and unfortunately even really good links get sometimes badly abused. I am sorry that the French Wikipedia is here a victim as such, but that is also why we suggest people to try it locally. I am sorry, but we do not have control about that part.
However, you make a good case for inclusion on the French wikipedia, and there it is certianly useful. On en I would say that it fails the external links guideline, and it was not used to expand articles and included as a reference (which makes it look spammy). I hope this explains it a bit further. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia editors:

I ask to remove a site from the black list, the site can be useful in several sections Russian Wikipedia

Thanks for your consideration The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) df|  11:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

Hello, can you please explain why it would be a useful link to add? As well, you may want to address the original reason for blacklisting.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear, admins,

Please unlock the domain name - that's russian fan site of the Tampa Bay Lightning, and there is huge collection of information etc. It was locked because of bot [[9]] and others "" bot. But despite domain wasn't logged itself in the mentioned meta, it was also blacklisted in that long metastring (that includes all the NHL teams with .ru).

Massive cross-wiki spam - I see no reason to remove the domain at all. If ruwiki wants this domain in their wiki, they can add it to their whitelist.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't found domain in the list of detected cross-wiki spam domains, listed here - there is and other "" domaind. I've checked some of those domains, that are listed as cross-wiki spam and they are all working under the same CMS, so it's likely they all have the same owner. tampabaylightning ru meanwhile have their own engine completely different from the spamers one and I know it's owner personaly. The site is up for seven years already and there's no need for them to spam wikipedia. If you'll googling for the "tampa bay lightning", will be the fifth in the list. Anyway, you can leave it blacklisted, if you think it's right, but if you'll check the spamed domains and this domain not only by ip and other technical stuff, but compare it's CMS's and content you'll find the absolute difference. Anyway it's up to wikipedia admins to unlock this domain or keep it blacklisted, I just can't understand, why I can't put the reference to the site, where I've taken most of the information on the team, while the domain itself wasn't detected as spamer and was put into the balcklist as accompaniment for the spamer doamins (see ).

No, all the domains listed were spammed, though there may not be a bot report for all of them. Again, due to the massive cross-wiki spam I see zero reason to de-list the domain. Consider the request officially   Declined  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the right of yours.

PS. Not trying to make you change your mind, but you're just wrong beign sure that domain was spammed just because other ones were. It wasn't. I'm sure of it. It was even down and didn't work from Jan to Aug 2009.

Victor (the guy that posted that request) gave me this link. My name is Alexei Chelukanov and I'm the owner of domain. Fisrt - sorry for the English it not very great. Personally I don't care if my site is blacklisted or not. So, I'm not requesting to remove the domain from the blacklist. I'm not a Wikipedia contributor, and I don't care if people will refer to my site or not. Consider it as just an official reply from for charging of spaming. 1. We NEVER spammed any websites, including Wikipedia. 2. We have no relation to the NHL teams domains in "ru"-zone that were registered on 2008-06-24 the list of those domains is mentioned on the bot-report page (the link was gave here by Victor) all the domains there were registered on the same day - you can check whois if you want. At least I did so first of all. We were registered on 2002-08-01. If you'll check whois for our domain - you can find there my e-mails and contact me for any kind of info about the project - I'm not hiding. 3. We have no relation to the CMS that is running on all the listed sites. "Black Nephrite Art Studio", as it's there. We developed our engine by ourselves. 4. The site was down from January 26 to August 13 2009 because of DoS attacks in January and then some following personal and financial problems interfered us to re-launch the project until mid-august. So if the links were added to wiki in March and April (as I see on the report page) it would be a link to nowhere, or to the "server could not be found" page. 5. The site was made by the fans and for the fans. We NEVER considered it as a commercial project (we even don't have any ads there). That's all I wanted to say as the site owner. I could repeat it anywhere just because it's truth. Now some personal thoughts about that issue. You say: "all the domains listed were spammed, though there may not be a bot report for all of them" (your words in "official decline" message), I will point that is not listed there - it's included in that long string in the middle of report page. I don't know why you included tampabaylightning in this string but it is not listed on the report page. There is 30 domains listed in the report - one for each NHL team. Tampa Bay Lightning there is and not All the listed 30 domains were registered on the same day - on 2008-06-24. - 6 years earlier. All the listed 30 sites have the same CMS. -doesn't - it has it's own dual-language CMS. At the day of the report all the listed 30 domains were working (and they do now). didn't - it was down. Once again. I personally don't care if the site would be blacklisted or not. I'm just running the site of the hockey team I love. I'm not a wikipedia contributor (that's no because wikipedia is bad or something, my site just takes all my free time). You can leave it blacklisted or not. But you've charged us of spaming and I had to reply to that charge. So. I don't ask you to remove domain from the blacklist (you've already oficially declined that request). But please, keep this message as my official reply to that charge. That's my first and only message here. If you need to, you can contact me vie email-s listed in the domain whois (there are three of them, you'll better use first one). Best regards and respect for you guys are doing (Wikipedia, I mean) Alexei Chelukanov, aka Chelya.

Dear Sir/Madam, pointed to request this spam removal at this location.

Could you remove the domain There is nothing wrong/spam with this website, it's a personal collection about the FC Barcelona history and Fan Clubs . I don't see the reason why is it in the spam blacklisted.

All the best.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

It was added because the link had been spammed cross wiki, see the blacklisting request here
The IP you are editing from,, is the same as the one spamming the link.
Please read the external links guidelines on the wikis where you are going to add links before you add any more.
  Declined --Jorunn 22:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Datasheets are a useful source of information in electronic articles, especially for tables. This site is an extensive repository of component datasheets. It is also preferable to go to a datasheet rather than directly to a manufacturers site because datasheets, being aimed at engineers, are usually free of marketing drivel. I am not at all sure why it is on the blacklist, or even how to find out, but I am willing to bet that it is not the site who have been doing the spamming but some minor company who have been posting their datasheet and the site gets the blame. Can we have it unlisted please? The immediate problem is in en:Primary line constants but there have been others. Spinningspark 14:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That domain is not blacklisted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That's funny, when I asked for it to be removed on they said it was blacklisted here. Is there somewhere else? Spinningspark 16:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my fault, its (singular). The particular one I'm trying to insert in an article is SpinningSpark 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the reason for blacklisting it in the log. --Jorunn 20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one, from what I can see. Stifle 08:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see 1 and 2. This was an addition by Nakon, however it is not logged at Spam_blacklist/Log/Nakon.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think possibly I should withdraw the request on the strength of that. SpinningSpark 23:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to this. When I am editing a entry regarding to research about "hand-made embroidery", I put a research centre's official website into the reference list.However It's stated that the reference website is in the blacklist.Then I research the blacklist,the site "" is not in there. I am just confused......I was told that when you are quoted something,you have to put the resource into the reference list...but why it's so hard..

That domain is not blacklisted here,   Deferred to zhwiki  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This URL is currently blacklisted. There must be an error because Europedia is an authoritative site on European Union policies and legislation. It is visited by some 20,000 persons a month, most of whom come from the United States. Adding the Europedia URL to the external links of some Wikipedia articles could bring valuable additional information to Wikipedia readers. In the reply to the request to whitelist the site I was told that this site is blocked at meta with no reason given in the log and that I should place a request for removal from the blacklist. Therefore, I request that the above URL be removed from the blacklist. Thank you in advance. Nmoussis 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I see:
323 records; Top 10 editors who have added (31), (30), (26), (26), (24), (24), (20), (19), (16), (13).
323 records; Top 10 wikis where has been added: w:fr (19), w:it (18), w:de (17), w:cs (13), w:el (11), w:sv (11), w:es (11), w:uk (10), w:en (10), w:pt (10).
If that 10 editors did so many of the additions (and noting that this de-list request was first posted by an IP in that range, and your username here now is also found in the link), to so many wikis, then it certainly has its place on this blacklist. I wonder if so many visit the site because the spamming campaign was so successful.   Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your very interesting conclusions.

Hello, This site is prepared by the province administration of Denizli province, where Pamukkale is located (see the section: contact). Its aim is mainly to promote the location but includes some first hand official information from the site as well. Pamukkale´s wiki page lacks reliable sources and I think the information in this website is needed to improve it. Thank you in advance for your attention. Regards — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Spammed cross-wiki. I'd suggest requesting whitelisting if there are specific uses where the domain is required.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  Declined df|  10:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear admins of wikipedia,

Currently, i am administrator of non-commercial Russian ArchiCAD users community. Few months ago i found my site in wikipedia`s global blacklist. Our site is not commercial project, but we do not provide any promotion actions or spam submissions. It seems to be small mistake with double submission our website into two articles ([BIM] and [ArchiCAD] in [Russian wikipedia]). So, please remove our website from wikipedia`s blacklist.

Thanks! Best regards,

Matthew Ivanov Architect, CAD manager crazyasd )dog( g m a i l . c o m

Per User:COIBot/XWiki/, it seems the links are unwanted & were spammed on both ruwiki and enwiki. I don't see how the link would be useful for our projects, I'll   decline this request.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see here, the domain is blocked globally, but the main page is unblocked locally at en. (Well, you won't see the local whitelisting after my change, so:

from w:en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Log:
[whitelisted main page] per arbcom allowed consensus (mainpage only) [10] / [11] / [12] )

Recently there was a whitelisting request for the main page at w:de, too.[13]
So in my opinion, it's the best to fuse all that by creating/modifying a global block, which leaves the main page unblocked globally. Then we don't need further local whitelist entries.
I'll modify the present entry now and just wanted to explain the reason for that. If there are any serious objections, feel free to revert my modification. -- seth 23:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Should that be /wiki/Main_Page?

I wanted to add {{published|author=Squidoo|date=|url=|title=Microwaved DVD|org=[http://www.]}} to the talk pages of Commons:File:Burned DVD, microwaved to ensure total elimination of private data..jpg and Commons:File:Microwaved disks-cover fractal-big Δ0048.JPG because they are used on a subpage. Maybe it is OK that this webpage is on the spamlist, but there should be a possibility at least for Commons admins to save pages even they include spam links; May between some kind of codec like <spamlink></spamlink> or something the like. May you can contact me on my Commons talk page if the voting or whatever is finished. thanks --D-Kuru 10:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:COIBot/LinkReports/ — Personally I do not think that this link should be removed, however, if you add the domain on the commons whitelist you will be able to use it on commons whithout any problem. I'm going to mark this as   Deferred to Wikimedia Commons whitelist. df|  12:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

May I request the un-blacklisting of my website from from the wiki page elevator shoes. About 2 or 3 years ago I made the mistake of posting a useless link directing to my website. I was unfamiliar with the web and I now fully understand Wikipedia's code of Conduct. I will not violate it again. I now have a step by step picture page that is informative to the wikipedia user on the process of Handmade shoe making. This will be my only link. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) df| 14:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

The link is not blacklisted on meta but it is on the English Wikipedia. You will have to ask there to request un-listing.   Deferred to the English Wikipedia Spam backlist. df| 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to this. I post this question to here before, but I can't find it now.If I am putting on the wrong places please let me know. Thank you :)

When I am editing a entry regarding to research about "Chinese hand-made embroidery", I put a research centre's official website into the reference list.However It's stated that the reference website is in the blacklist.Then I research the blacklist,the site "" is not in there. I am just confused......Is it means the site was blocked in chinese wiki?I was told that when you are quoted something,you have to put the resource into the reference list...but why it's so hard.. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) df| 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

Hello, the link is not blacklisted on meta but it is on zh.wikipedia. They blacklisted the link with the comment 湘绣广告. You should ask on zh:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Best regards, df| 14:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

request removal from blacklist page

The site is This is not any sort of spam site and contains information useful to the Meredith Kercher Murder page where significant disputes exist. The author of the site is a guy in Perugia, Italy named Frank Sfarzo. He makes significant first hand statements about the Amanda Knox trial, some of which are unique and reliable. There isn't any bad side to this site. --PhanuelB 21:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

  Deferred to enwiki as it is blacklisted there, not here. --dferg ☎ talk 19:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.

COIBot reports showing up in Google results

Hello Beetstra, please correct me if I'm wrong, but, aren't COIBot reports suposed not to be indexed by search engines? (see diff of Robots.txt). I saw that sometimes those reports appears in Google results. Would be possible for COIBot to add {{NOINDEX}} to every new report it creates? Thank you. df|  15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you are correct. Thing is that, already before that edit to the Robots.txt, COIBot is adding {{NOINDEX}} to all his reports (I added that because of the complaints, while we were still waiting for the 'global' noindex). I am however curious to see a couple of those reports which show up on Google, somewhere must be something wrong. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Beetstra, thanks for your reply. I asked because I've found the reply on strange. I quote: [...]The Google hit (ranked 12 in my search) links to the COIBot report[...].
I checked this on my own and I have found that it is true, at least for User:COIBot/LinkReports/ and I supose it is not the unique. Perhaps Google is ignoring the {{NOINDEX}}es tags? Thanks for your time. df|  20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Now I don't know. Maybe we should either first discuss it on the spam blacklist, or maybe immediately a bug-report? It would be really bad if Google is ignoring the noindex. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll post this discussion on the discussion section of the SBL so that other admins/experienced users can share their opinions. Thank you, df|  10:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anybody knows why some of them appears? Thank you for Your time. df|  11:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See [14] and maybe [15] too. I think there are probably unexplored bugs here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see in the source of the travel2mac-coibot-page <meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow" />. Is that what it should read? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So... any other comments?, is this going to be fixed?. Thanks, df|  10:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you save this page?

o-verflow:auto; height: Seriously, try it. Rocket000 07:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it is blocked via $wgSpamRegex you may want to see this request from June concerning the same subject. I've added a - on the expresion given above because I'm triggering the spam filter too. Best regards, df|  10:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
More background: [16] df|  14:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I looked into after I posted here. This got to be one of the worse filters ever. I can't believe some people don't see this as a bug... It's not even written to block what it was intended for. It should be looking for a very small height, but it doesn't get that far. It blocks non-hidden elements. Anyway, spammers listen up, just rearrange it: height: ; overflow:auto; is perfectly fine. So is overflow:auto; clear:none; height: or any random default property. Rocket000 06:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-09" page.