Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Spam blacklist Archives (current)→
The associated page is used by the MediaWiki Spam Blacklist extension, and lists regular expressions which cannot be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist; either manually or with SBHandler. For more information on what the spam blacklist is for, and the processes used here, please see Spam blacklist/About.
Proposed additions
Please provide evidence of spamming on several wikis and and prior blacklisting on at least one. Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist. Exceptions include malicious domains and URL redirector/shortener services. Please follow this format. Please check back after submitting your report, there could be questions regarding your request.
Proposed removals
Please check our list of requests which repeatedly get declined. 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. Please consider whether requesting whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use is more appropriate - that is very often the case.
Other discussion
Troubleshooting and problems - If there is an error in the blacklist (i.e. a regex error) which is causing problems, please raise the issue here.
Discussion - Meta-discussion concerning the operation of the blacklist and related pages, and communication among the spam blacklist team.
#wikimedia-external-linksconnect - Real-time IRC chat for co-ordination of activities related to maintenance of the blacklist.

Please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. This leaves a signature and timestamp so conversations are easier to follow.

Completed requests are marked as {{added}}/{{removed}} or {{declined}}, and are generally archived (search) quickly. Additions and removals are logged · current log 2014/04.

List of all projects
Wikimedia Embassy
Project portals
Country portals
Spam blacklist
Title blacklist
Vandalism reports
Closure of wikis
Interwiki map
Bot flags
New languages
New projects
Username changes
Usurpation request
Speedy deletions

snippet for logging

Proposed additions[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (, not Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived.[edit]


    • Blocked on 6 wikis, all 6 cases seem for running an unauthorised bot from the main account.
    • Gained given rights on other wikis (autoreview, uploader, autopatrolled, flood (!), trusted

    • Indef blocked on 5 wikis as 'unauthorised bot'
    • But also bot on w:ar, w:be, w:el, w:ru, w:uk

Opening this one up for discussion - difficult situation. This link and the accompanying user came up now since we have a new database.

This was first discussed on w:WP:ANI (perm link during discussion) where the actions were deemed inappropriate, and which resulted in removal (rollback) of quite some of the links.

This was followed by a Request for Comment regarding this site. see w:Wikipedia:Archive.is_RFC. The basic conclusion was there that Rotlink has been very aggressive in adding their links, pushing them using accounts, unapproved bots, and many IPs (for which the concern was that they were illegally used; "This list of IPs included three different Indian states, Italy, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Qatar, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Brazil, Argentina, Portugal, Spain, France, Mexico, Austria, and South Africa."). Conclusion of the RfC was also to remove the links, and then to blacklist the site on en.wikipedia. That request was filed, but has not been honoured yet since the links have not been removed yet.

Today I notice:

  • 3149 records; Domains added by Rotlink: (2583), (560), (6).
  • 275 records; Domains added by RotlinkBot: (206), (69).
  • 4034 records; Top 10 editors who have added Rotlink (2586), RotlinkBot (205), (and another handful of accounts, counts 194, 79, 59 .. etc.)

... seen the consensus of the en.wikipedia RfC, I find it quite shocking that we already have so many links added in the short time the db is up. Not sure what to do here, since there are, likely, thousands and thousands of links out there by now, and the en.wikipedia contradicts the bot-rights on some (albeit smaller) wikis. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Seen the precedent that allowing this could set, I am very tempted to just blacklist this. This is not the way the Community should be approached, especially when one of the communities went to the level of an RfC and concluded to remove the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  • While I understand and share Beetstra's concerns over the way these links have been introduced and the related discussions on the English Wikipedia, I do not think it wise for us to override locally made decisions, as this user runs an approved bot on multiple wikis. I suggest that, at most, local 'crats and sysops be contacted first so that local whitelisting can take place. I actually think that might be a desirable route. Snowolf How can I help? 15:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
User Rotlink also activate on He use his bot on main account for replacing of dead links. We know about this fact, and we decided to leave him to do his job, without flag, because he has usefull contributions, and his edits on are not frequently. --XXN (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
My understanding that the request is for a blacklisting of the domain, that are added by the bot, not requesting any action against the block, which indeed is a community issue.

Request for blacklist - hmm. I know that may be unrealistic. It is more the thought behind it.

This is a curious issue, if the bot-accounts were not there, I probably would have plainly blacklisted this. There is no question that the editor/bot/maintainer of the bot has a clear conflict of interest here, and, on en.wikipedia, pushed their links without consulting the editors, using multiple accounts, unapproved bots, or running bots on their own account - it is a clear disregard of Wikipedia policies there which will result in removal of the links, and blacklisting of the site, per local consensus. What I think is, that that is the case on quite a number of other Wikipedias as well - seen that the bot/editor is blocked on quite some Wikis.

I expect that on ALL the wikis these link additions were unsollicited (at least, at first).

It is interesting to see that other Wikis however have taken a different approach to what, what I also expect on those wikis, are plainly unsollicited link additions by an account who has a vested interest in the additions, allowing that, and apparently even encouraging that (by granting bot accounts, or letting the account do it on their main account).

What I am mainly worried about is the precedent it sets. Do we allow certain companies to spam their links cross-wiki 'because they are fine', but not others? Or do we handle this by blacklisting, and if local wikis want differently they can blanket-whitelist? What about the really small wikis - do they even notice, do they even have a anti-spam team, can they cope, or do we let them 'flood' with this? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to close this discussion as inconclusive, unless there is a larger input from a multiple of wikis, especially those that have multiple links to the site. The issue to me also seems whether the bot is doing the right thing, not whether the site is inappropriate. My following some of the links does indeed show an archival copy of a website.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Seeing this, I reviewed the enwiki discussion, a train wreck, decided as "consensus" when it was obviously not a community consensus, but only a majority position among those who follow central process. Blacklisting a page has not been done there, because so many legitimate usages exist, obviously, as shown by real community consensus, i.e., what is supported by the full user base and Recent Changes Patrollers. Yes, local wikis could then whitelist, but meanwhile many pages would become effectively uneditable by ordinary mortals. I agree with Billinghurst. This is far from ordinary spam. I have also looked at links. Every one I saw appeared to be legitimate. The discussion on Wikipedia did not identify a single inappropriate link, and there are, what, 10,000 of them on enwiki alone. There are solutions to the problems raised, and the blacklist is not one of them. The edit filter has apparently been configured, I suspect it is to interdict the IP edits adding links. That is a far less disruptive solution, together with bot operation with real community approval. --Abd (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Abd, RC patrol leaving a link is not a consensus to include, nor is there consensus from the full user base if links remain. Regarding that consensus is utter nonsense. If a true spammer adds a true spam link, and it stays for a month, then a link has consensus to stay. No. This is spam by the very definition of it. The editor linked because they pushed the links cross-wiki, hoping they would stay. There has been a discussion on en.wikipedia, where the consensus is that the links were unwanted, there are alternatives and should go. Having a conflict of interest here is the whole problem.
My suggestion is to blanket blacklist this on meta, and when Wikis really find this appropriate, they can whitelist the whole site - that does not make it impossible for 'ordinary mortals' to edit on that wiki.
I will review the en.wikipedia linking, those 10,000 of them that were spammed should have been removed by now. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Dreamer! There are currently 30,824 links to on en.wikipedia.
I looked at link number 30824. Added by [100]. Legitimate editor. --Abd (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
And consider this advice about linkrot: usage. --Abd (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is that the links should be removed and then the site should be blacklisted on en.wikipedia. That consensus may change, but that is still the standing consensus. That is was used by a legitimate user does not change that it was spammed uncontrollably, and that therefore the standing consensus is to remove and blacklist.
You know how w:en:Wikipedia:Citing_sources/ got there, right? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course. Beetstra just removed the section.[101]. It got there by an IP edit [102] that moved it from WP:Link rot, July 2013. The Link rot content was edited in November 2012 by a regular user. The basic content was added in September, 2012 by a regular user.
Just checked again: 30,831 links. ~10 links per day likely being added by registered, autoconfirmed users.
I found a WP page on that claimed it had been blacklisted. however, The enwiki blacklist discussion was closed as "Not done." There was a report of link count by the filer at 27,309, as of 3 December 2013. There were efforts to remove links, but there is a net gain of over 1500 links per month. I'm guessing that the removal efforts have flagged.
Billinghurst very simply acknowledged the obvious outcome. This has been open for over a month. Time to close it, before it wastes more time; it makes it difficult to read this page, certainly on mobile devices. -Abd (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the blacklisting request was closed as not-done .. for now, as obviously, first a part needs to be cleaned out.
Of course I removed it - consensus is that the links should not be used, they should be removed and then blacklisted.
I knew that you would bring up lenr-canr and lyrikline again. Those actions have nicely set the precedent, Abd. The blacklist exists to stop abuse of external links - Wikipedia is not here to promote a site, as is done here, and as was done with lyrikline. This will be archived at some point, no need to close it. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This is not a page to discuss overall blacklisting philosophy, it is a request page. I will take discussion of that topic, and how blacklisting fits into the overall goals of the projects, (not "Wikipedia"), to another page. Meanwhile, this unnecessarily long report (it is not controversial that links were massively added by many IPs) can continue to make this page difficult to load and edit on mobile devices, as long as the administrators who need to use this page care to allow. I'm surprised that one of them would file a report here that was clearly intended for discussion, not for decision, since he already knew the outcome as to blacklisting in the near future. But that's his choice. --Abd (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain me the goal of your last interventions? You moved from a legit position towards an harsher and harsher one vs. one quarrel. For the n-th time I must ask you to refrain from this kind of behaviour. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
"it is not controversial that links were massively added by many IPs" - you know what that can be violating, and what it was found to be violating - a person involved with the website pushed their links because they found them good after they were told on their account that that is not the way Wikipedia works, and that is why we are discussing here. Nor is it an excuse that discussions should not continue because the page gets long. ALL requests here are brought to discussion, and a decision may come out of that. I still consider the option of global blacklisting with whitelisting on the wikis that have explicitly agreed with the influx of links. We are not here to promote --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Beetstra. However, this page does not exist to argue the merits or demerits of blacklisting/whitelisting policy and practice. Since you apparently wish to continue to discuss this, while there is no possibility in the near future of a global blacklisting for, the place for that is Talk:Spam_blacklist/About. I started [103]. This is a noticeboard for requests for blacklisting/delisting. Let's keep it for that. --Abd (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair dinkum abd … rich! A dismissive approach is unhelpful. What is described is a process to manage the blacklisting of a domain and allow communities to allow the url, clearly within the purview of this page where there has been issues raised and this would be a solution. If that was an agreed solution the mechanics would need to be worked out, so clearly on-topic.

My issue is still that we have bot behaviour, and url concerns combined. The bot has been blocked at sites due to it being an unflagged bot, and its operation style, none have I seen with regard to the domain. The domain is not blacklisted anywhere. The bot and link are clearly accepted and wanted in places. At this point in time, without a broader input from the communities, I don't see that we can blacklist. Wikis that don't like the domain are able and welcome to block the domain, and if there are sufficient of those then we can be more strident with our approach.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: - the link is due to be blacklisted on en.wikipedia - the request is on hold due to the fact that the links have not been cleaned up yet. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been watching the link level. On March 1, there were, on the six major wikis listed by Template:LinkSummary, a total of 61,026 links. On March 10, 60,887. Today, there are 61,115.. Only one wiki has net reduction in link count, en.wikipedia. An edit filter is preventing new link additions there, so that reduction may represent ordinary attrition, even vandalism. (Vandal blanks page, will the edit filter prevent an editor from reverting it?) --Abd (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Rotlink is now blocked on 10 wikis and RotlinkBot is now blocked on 6 wikis. I've managed to read through the entire discussion on enwiki when I found it while I was researching an unrelated topic (old ArbCom motions) and from what I can gather Rotlink appears to be banned from the English Wikipedia, but we do not know if the links he added to his website are legitimate (currently they are but that might change).

As I see it, we have two options: we can choose to blacklist the domain and have local projects whitelist it for their own use, or "whitelist" the domain (that is, not do anything with it) and have local projects blacklist it. I would be for the latter option because I don't want to see English Wikipedia's style of "consensus" being imposed on other wikis. At the same time we must recognize that this is a problem. Since other wikis have acknowledged however that Rotlink has done a small bit of constructive work per their local communities, I would think this normally needs greater consensus before banning either Rotlink or the domain he links to. We can take the blocks on 10 different wikis as slight support that Rotlink might not be wanted on Wikimedia, but I note also that they have not reverted him nor blacklisted/banned the domain he links to yet.

@Dirk Beetstra, we need greater evidence and consensus among local wiki communities that this is a global problem which should only be whitelisted per local communities' consensuses on a case-by-case basis. At the very least, while Rotlink and his bot remain blocked, I have seen no further abuse of proxies since his last "attack" on the English Wikipedia. I think if you can gather evidence he is using proxies against German Wikipedia or Portuguese Wikipedia, the respective communities might be more receptive consensus-wise to a blacklisting proposal, and it would add more consensus to your case for global blacklisting. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

TeleCom is apparently correct. Even where allowed, Rotlink and RotlinkBot have mostly ceased activity. The focus on Rotlink is misleading. The report above shows a total number of edits from Rotlink, RotlinkBot, and the other top 10 editors adding the links, as roughly 4,000 links. What I have not seen -- anywhere -- is a study of how many links were added by ordinary, regular editors. There are still over 61,000 links globally, so it's rather obvious that, if not for the edit filter, regular editors would be adding them to, as they are elsewhere.
Last time I'd looked R and RBot had actually ceased. But then I noticed how many edits Rotlink has on 12,422. So I looked at contributions, and there was one today. It's a link to I looked back. The same with an earlier link. I also looked at the last edit of RotlinkBot to mainspace, August 18, last year, before the block. A link to The bot was finding google cache links, due to expire, and replacing them with either links or links. Unauthorized bot, yes. Doing good work, debatable, but at least some of it quite useful. --Abd (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Ntsamr cross-wiki spam --Glaisher [talk] 04:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[edit]

    • Site is used for collecting money donations and spam-publications. Blocked in w:ru. Nearly 40 links have also been deleted in English and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Михеев Денис (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • this was writed by blocked user of look at his profile. No needs to block site.
      • It is not my account. It has been blocked for impersonation. Михеев Денис (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Support Pro. This vandal site was created by alcoholic. Big part of information on this site - fully false and absurd. Also his users adde spam-links in different wiki, but this is banned.--Region190 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Pro, is used as SEO-spam-site, also attacks against Wikipedia are placed there.-- 10:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Today i find some spam-links in Belorussian Wikipedia.--Region190 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[edit]

 — billinghurst sDrewth 15:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Added Added. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 15:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spambot links[edit]

All links hosted on Namecheap. Being spammed across the wikis. --Glaisher [talk] 09:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Added Added. --Glaisher [talk] 09:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Added Added one more. --Glaisher [talk] 05:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[edit]

as per the other {{subst:d|o type spam and blacklisted  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Added Added. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

+2 more[edit]

 — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Added Added. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[edit]

URL shortener. MER-C (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Added Added. --Glaisher [talk] 12:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Alias of URL shortener MER-C (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Added Added. --Glaisher [talk] 17:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions (Bot reported)[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for domains which have been added to multiple wikis as observed by a bot.

These are automated reports, please check the records and the link thoroughly, it may report good links! For some more info, see Spam blacklist/Help#COIBot_reports. Reports will automatically be archived by the bot when they get stale (less than 5 links reported, which have not been edited in the last 7 days, and where the last editor is COIBot).

  • If the report contains links to less than 5 wikis, then only add it when it is really spam
  • Otherwise just revert the link-additions, and close the report; closed reports will be reopened when spamming continues
  • To close a report, change the LinkStatus template to closed ({{LinkStatus|closed}})
  • Please place any notes in the discussion section below the HTML comment


The LinkWatchers report domains meeting the following criteria:

  • When a user mainly adds this link, and the link has not been used too much, and this user adds the link to more than 2 wikis
  • When a user mainly adds links on one server, and links on the server have not been used too much, and this user adds the links to more than 2 wikis
  • If ALL links are added by IPs, and the link is added to more than 1 wiki
  • If a small range of IPs have a preference for this link (but it may also have been added by other users), and the link is added to more than 1 wiki.
COIBot's currently open XWiki reports
List Last update By Site IP R Last user Last link addition User Link User - Link User - Link - Wikis Link - Wikis 2014-04-16 01:39:31 COIBot
2014-04-16 00:57:33 6 3 2014-04-15 22:17:16 COIBot
2014-04-14 04:43:15 5 3 2014-04-16 00:22:55 COIBot Mariaandorra2
2014-04-14 17:46:32 30 3 2014-04-14 11:50:31 COIBot 2014-04-14 08:02:49 7 6 6 2 2 2014-04-16 01:31:52 COIBot X
2014-04-16 00:57:33 18 6 2014-04-16 06:46:04 COIBot Helder Monter
2014-04-16 00:59:57 2 2 2014-04-15 15:41:25 COIBot
2014-04-14 16:04:50 6 6 2014-04-14 23:02:10 COIBot ORSEU
2014-04-14 14:57:51 11 5 2014-04-16 01:39:15 COIBot
2014-04-16 00:57:33 6 3 2014-04-15 16:31:55 COIBot
2014-04-14 16:04:50 7 7 2014-04-15 17:01:42 COIBot Sandrewmetronome 2014-04-14 08:22:06 7 6 6 0 5 2014-04-16 07:00:59 COIBot
2014-04-16 00:57:33 8 3 2014-04-16 06:39:13 COIBot
2014-04-16 01:10:21 31 2 2014-04-16 05:21:44 COIBot 2014-04-16 01:31:01 65 49 1 1 5 2014-04-15 20:27:05 COIBot Absent69 2014-04-15 06:55:14 1095 11 1 0 4 2014-04-16 06:21:00 COIBot Aqetz
2014-04-15 13:15:52 3 2 2014-04-15 22:44:38 COIBot Davids amorim
2014-04-15 04:29:48 19 5

Proposed removals[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section.

Remember to provide the specific domain blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as {{removed}} or {{declined}} and archived.

See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals.


  • The addition or removal of a domain from the blacklist is not a vote; please do not bold the first words in statements.
  • This page is for the removal of domains from the global blacklist, not for removal of domains from the blacklists of individual wikis. For those requests please take your discussion to the pertinent wiki, where such requests would be made at Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist at that wiki. Seth's blacklist check tool — remember to enter any relevant language code

Wondershare Software[edit]

I have been creating quite a few tech articles and in the process of editing my userspace for Wondershare Software, I see a message that it was "blacklisted." Not sure if I am in the correct place or not but would like to request that the domain is removed so that I can use it as an external link in the information box. Not sure why it was listed so I cannot attest to SPAM, but will say that the company's website is useful to further understanding who they are and what they do. Here is a list to the article I am working on en:User:CNMall41/Wondershare_Software. I have removed the company URL from the information box as it will not allow me to save changes with it. Let me know what, if anything, can be done. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I found User:COIBot/XWiki/ which shows 9 links that were added between 2012 and 2013? Not sure if I am reading it correctly. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@CNMall41: Spam blacklist/Log/2013/06 which points to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lauriejackpot1. As there is a large number of domains blacklisted concurrently. I don't see a particular issue removing it from the blacklist as it was not specifically the domain that was an issue, though that is not a guarantee that it will work at enWP you will need to check what happened locally, nor a guarantee that it would stay off blacklists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at those links and the spamming history, that indicates to me that if you are just looking at the one article, that you may be best to look to a whitelist of the base url, and that would need to be done at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Billinghurst. It takes only a few clicks from the COIBot reports to get to checkuser-blocked accounts, so I do think that this was spammed/pushed as well. I would indeed suggest to whitelist the index-page or the about-page on w:en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. I looked at the link to accounts that were spamming. Seems like quite a few took place at the same time. I also looked locally and the URL is not on en.W so removing it from this list should allow it to be used (I believe??). Currently I am only working on the single article for the company so not sure what would be needed beyond that unless I branch out creating articles for a few of their products (who knows??). I just want to make sure that I make the right request here. Would you advise removing it from the global list or requesting that the homepage url be whitelisted? This is the first time I have made a request for a blocked URL so your advice would be much appreciated. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The recommendation is to seek whitelisting, as expressed above.

Looking at the links alone can be deceptive for reflecting current behaviour, especially spambots, when an abuse route has been determined. The WPs will not have a lot of call for any subsidiary notable software, and the sister sites virtually none.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Request has been made [104]. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Romove protection filter: This Is Him New Album Link The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bald Head People (talk • contribs) 12:22, 14 April 2014. From Special:Diff/8160102 Glaisher [talk] 13:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bald Head People: This link is not blacklisted on the global spam blacklist. It is blacklisted at English Wikipedia. See addition request. Please file a request at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist for local English Wikipedia spam blacklist issues. --Glaisher [talk] 13:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above). incorrectly blocking[edit] is a url shortner, so blocking this is necessary. But, some areas using .co as a second level domain are involved in this blacklist. For example, Japanese company Kinki Nippon Tourist Individual Tour Sales Co., Ltd. (近畿日本ツーリスト個人旅行販売) has a domain , but this cannnot be linked now.--Jkr2255 (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Status:    Done
I was able to make the regex more specific for the shortener  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC) incorrectly blocking[edit]

Just like above discussion. Sites related to Kochi prefecture or Kochi city (in Japan) sometimes use ***, which cannot be linked.--Jkr2255 (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

should be Yes check.svg Done, please test  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for discussion of Spam blacklist issues among other users.

COIBot / LiWa3[edit]

I am busy slowly restarting COIBot and LiWa3 again - both will operate from fresh tables (LiWa3 started yesterday, 29/12/2013; COIBot started today, 30/12/2013). As I am revamping some of the tables, and they need to be regenerated (e.g. the user auto-whitelist-tables need to be filled, blacklist-data for all the monitored wikis), expect data to be off, and some functionality may not be operational yet. LiWa3 starts from an empty table, which also means that autodetection based on statistics will be skewed. I am unfortunately not able to resurrect the old data, that will need to be done by hand). Hopefully things will be normal again in a couple of days. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Change in functionality of spam blacklist[edit]

Due to issues with determining the content of parsed pages ahead of time (see bugzilla:15582 for some examples), the way the spam blacklist works should probably be changed. Per bugzilla:16326, I plan to submit a patch for the spam blacklist extension that causes it to either delink or remove blacklisted links upon parsing, or replace them with a link to a special page explaining the blacklisting. This could be done either in addition to or instead of the current functionality. Are there any comments or suggestions on such a new implementation? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)