Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-05

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions


A couple of requests from english e portuguese editions:

From here

Spam at pl.wikinews: [1] [2] --Derbeth 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --M/ 20:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[3] --Derbeth 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 23:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A spammer (IP has been adding links in the form of to a handful of Wikipedia pages (including here). Site is practically all Google and adult-themed ads. RadioKirk talk to me 18:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 23:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not done

--Connel MacKenzie 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Not added. An annoying cybersquatter, but not actively spamming. - Amgine / talk meta 23:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed removals


I could not edit interwiki map because of its listing here. I can not find a entry about this site on the talk pages here. That website does not look like there is anything bad about it --Walter 20:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Previously removed - Amgine / talk meta 21:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC) triggers the spam filter. I don't know why. It's an innocuous page about the history of the Breton flag. There aren't even any ads, let alone spam. 17:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (a.k.a en:User:QuartierLatin1968)

Most likely because "logos\.com" is on the spam blocklist. I don't know how to get it to block only the actual and not the variations. en:User:Iamthejabberwock 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Use www\.logos\.com instead of logos\.com (should block only the spam links to the logos online store) Croquant 08:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think \.logos\.com would be the better solution. - Andre Engels 07:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed [4]. Korg + + 11:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC),

This is another instance of the Nigerian spam which was earlier featured here under the URL (see /completed additions). Every few days, some articles on Nigeria-related topics (especially w:Nigeria and w:Lagos) get hit by the spammers, who add the link or Both of these sites are virtually without content and overly commercial; additionally, the pictures found on them are suspected of being copyright violations (see w:Talk:Lagos). Like the previous time, threats have been directed at a user objecting to the link [5]. A new twist to the story is the creation of tens of sockpuppets, just to put this link in articles. This is the prime reason for these urls to be added to the spam blacklist (the problem cannot be solved by by blocking one user or IP).

Some examples of the link(s) being added (this is just the Nigeria article, I'm too tired of this shit to look for diffs in the w:Lagos article or in other articles)

  • Lagos (new user Hotwaee)
  • Nigeria (new user Medene ojegba, misleading edit summary)
  • Nigeria (new user Martin Paul, misleading edit summary)
  • Nigeria (same user Martin Paul, misleading edit summary)
  • Nigeria (new user Mark Gills)
  • Nigeria (new user James lee, misleading edit summary).
  • Nigeria (new user Amy333, now indefinitely blocked for threats and spamming, see contribs for why)
  • Nigeria (new user El Shadomi, misleading edit summary)

Oh well, some more for good measure::

  • Abuja (new user Ojegba)
  • Abuja (new user Hotwwwae)
  • Kano (new user Titoto)

And lastly, see the discussion at the admin's noticeboard which led to the first indefinite block, and come see the jailed sockpuppets which were created and used to spam since then.

I hope this request can be enacted quickly. Thanks very much! — mark 17:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 16:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Another spambot hitting en with multiple different host names on the domain. Example. --GraemeL 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Further example - [6] --GraemeL 20:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
added - Amgine / talk meta 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This link, has been added many dozens of times to multiple articles on the English Wikipedia. For some examples, see nearly every contribution from each of these IPs:

added - Amgine / talk meta 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. --Rory096 04:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 20:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC),


[12] Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC),

It is my reading of the community consensus at en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto that these sites, particularly, contain material which is inappropriate for linking to Wikipedia, but which has been reinserted multiple times by editors pushing minority views. They are operated by en:User:Whaleto, who is the main culprit in adding the links, and according to Alexa, Wikipedia is the main site linking in to both domains. The principal issues are: dubious copyright status; excessive editorialising around the content, imparting bias to otherwise potentially neutral text; violation of en:WP:NPA. The second site,, is supposedly a "wikipedia clean fork without the worst of the copyvios and tendentious essays, but according to my reading of the RfC there is no great confidence in it remainaing as such, and in any case the content hosted should, if it is relevant at all, be referenced from its parent sources, not from a one-sided website. I think most of the links have now been clesned, but since they have been added to more than one language project, and to more than one high-traffic article (e.g. en:Donald Rumsfeld) it seems likely that Wikipedia is being used to boost search engine renkings, and I therefore ask if you would please blacklist both sites. en:User:JzG 18:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

From a spammer on enwiki. --Rory096 05:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC),

Per en:WP:AN, linkspamming. No obvious valid reaosn for including these commercial sites anywhere. en:User:JzG 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 20:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Numerous URL's


See Sonikmatter Wiki for history log. Many other examples can be provided if requested (request via Main Discussion Page

4th May 2006 spammed again [13] [14] [15] plus about a dozen new pages (now deleted)

And again on the 4th May, with new added URL's. Everything from heated towel rails, to pharmaceuticals, to bikini's and student loans. Grrrrr!!!!


[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

added - Amgine / talk meta 20:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC),

Rather odd spambot attack on enwiki. --Rory096 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 19:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please add [22] Platonides 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly spammed on w:en:Sebaceous cyst by a dynamic IP in India since August 2005. See history. Rhobite 01:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I have now sprotected the page (not for the first time). 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
added - Amgine / talk meta 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks

These two pages AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks are spam themselves, and full of links to the two websites. Apart that, nothing valuable in the pages, each one speaks about the other one!
There are lot of rules in Wikipedia:External_links that are violated by these pages. For example, page with a code to enter, commercial product, and so one... I propose to banish AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks for some time, as it is impossible all these links were added by supporters. Spankman 07:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I know them as aggressive spammers. 11:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Pending response from IBM. - Amgine / talk meta 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No response from IBM, spam links restored in the article. Added - Amgine / talk meta 19:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made a search for developerWorks and WP returned 164 results, most of them being backlinks. Links usually has the form and redirected to Nice organization! Wikipedia is full of stubs as this one: Rational that is here just to provide a bunch of backlinks to their websites. Spankman 12:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know about this, but it seems ridiculous that we can't have links to alphaworks anymore. For example, the XForms page points to lists of implementations, and now it is not possible to save the page.--Ebruchez 22:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistant SPAMmer with a rotating IP range. See history for "datasheet" and the LTA report which suggested adding it here. 17:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC), (nezumi.dumousseau|ann.ledoux|, 2°, 3°, 4°

All those sites are used by a former sysop of French Wikipedia, fr:User:Nezumi, who used dozens of sock-puppets to change votes, etc. and was blocked after a long investigation. See (French pages) fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Affaire Kouroineko and fr:Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage/Arbitrage/Marc Mongenet-Nezumidumousseau. We still have many problems with this user, and adding those addresses in Blacklist would give us help. Hégésippe | ±Θ± (one of 100 sysops on FR) 18:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Solenseanᛁ 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Phe 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Alvaro 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 18:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of URLs

  • **
  • (*
  • *

I'm not sure what netfirms is (and I'm afraid to go there and see), so a * may or may not work. --Rory096 16:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 04:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC),

Repetitive link spam from anonymous IPs. w:Steve Yzerman is the main target but others have been hit in the past. steveyzerman is a gateway to which is nothing but a sports memorabilia web store. Good starting point for investigation: [[23]] Ccwaters 22:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 01:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC),

This site was added to around 100 articles by its owner, who then edit-warred over the links' removal (see en:user:JzG/Fisheaters). The site is actually tolerably good, but the way in which it is linked is almost always misleading, usually of the form "Catholic view of foo" or "Traditional Catholic view of foo" - actually it's a traditionalist Catholic view, which is (as so often with the word Traditional) actually a minor, reactionary viewpoint, in this case dissenting from Vatican II. Once a month or so I run a search for the site against Wikipedia and find a few of them creeping back in, usually added by anons, and occasionally one pops up to the top of my watchlist. The most recent was at en:Providentissimus Deus, where it was added as "text of Providentissimus Deus in English" - but the text is available in English from the Vatican site, which is (a) a better, more authoritative source per en:WP:EL and (b) not part of a site pushing a fringe view of Catholicism. I'd understand if this request was rejected, and will if necessary keep going back and cleaning the linkspam, but it would be good if I didn't have to. JzG 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would you blacklist a perfectly good site because someone a few months ago added a link to the text of a document that wasn't already linked to? What is wrong with having the "traditional Catholic view" of "foo"? Have you read the site? It looks very inclusive within the traditionalist Catholic paradigm; I can't see a thing wrong with it. The site in question: fisheaters DOT com Anyone else seeing any problems with this site?
Previously added to list - Amgine / talk meta 01:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC),

  • http://q123.q1.ohost_de/
  • http://qwerty1.freehostonline_com/

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to evidence? (diffs) - Amgine / talk meta 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[24] Naconkantari e|t||c|m 07:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
added - Amgine / talk meta 01:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Spamming cultural links in fr.wikipedia through dynamic IP's. Received a warning but disregarded it. Alex lbh 11:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

see also fr:WP:LB#Contributions_82.242.161.104 -- fr:User:Denis Dordoigne 14:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
added - Amgine / talk meta 18:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) please see here: thank you for adding it!

added - Amgine / talk meta 18:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Links to this website have been added to numerous pharmaceutical-related pages on the English Wikipedia, including about 50 instances to the article on sildenafil by an IP-hopping linkspammer. [25] Edgar181 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 18:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Keeps spamming medical articles in the german wikipedia (e.g. [26], [27] and [28], also [29]). Syntax it uses is See also the discussion on the german Portal for Medicine (in german). Thanks, Lennert B 12:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 18:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Spam attack on EN, being used by open proxies on articles related to gambling (w:Blackjack). Request at Zscout370 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded: [30], [31]. Rhobite 15:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
added - Amgine / talk meta 18:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Another domain for the blacklist. See [32]

--jwalling 21:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
added - Amgine / talk meta 18:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please add to the Blacklist. I'm reciving large attacks with this domain in my wiki: link: thank you! joel (at) graffiti DOT lu

Added previously by Amgine

Some spamage


We get a lot of these on our wiki, is a major one

This is a site which profiles Filipino actors and actresses. It uses Google ads, but the content is not itself particularly objectionable. I removed a link to it from several articles on the English wikipedia a couple of hours ago, and put the standard {{spam}} template on the user page of the anon who'd added it. At this point, I considered the site of marginal quality, and if they'd politely argued it was worth having, I'd have left it alone.

Instead, for the last two hours, several anons and en:User:antiracist have bombarded my user and talk pages on en with abuse. As a result, I think his web site deserves a permanent place on the spam list from us.-Gadfium 02:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 17:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My wiki was spammed with various urls under

added - Amgine / talk meta 19:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Various Spam

See this and this for some spam the Perl-Begin mediawiki has received. Please update it into the spam blacklist.

added - Amgine / talk meta 18:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

freesexxx[0-9]?, club[0-9]?


See [34] thanks --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

added - Amgine / talk meta 17:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This link has been spammed over en.wikipedia recently. See en:Wikipedia:Administrators' spamming. --Ilmari Karonen 13:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

previously added by mindspillage

Various Spam Found on the RMCS Wiki

A few spammers have hopped the login hurdle and hit us at the RMCS Wiki.



and here:

and here:
added - Amgine / talk meta 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not done

moved from Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

I listed a request to have removed from the blacklist a month ago and it is still sitting in the queue. I have been unable to receive any coherent explanation under Meta policy as to why the domain deserves to be on the list, especially when the same WP admin responds to the same kind of issue differently elsewhere. I hope that a neutral admin will be able to help. uriah923 18:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick search on led me to find several spam incidents about this domain. Therefore, I do not agree with a removal. --M/ 19:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you please explain the policy that has been broken and why a blacklisting is appropriate? uriah923 22:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Sites that try to use Wikipedia to bring more traffic or boost their search engine position should be blocked, and remain blocked. My reference is in Italian. --M/
I have a couple of issues:
  1. This policy (any activity to increase traffic or promote PR will result in the permanent blocking of that domain) is not present on
  2. The site did not try to bring traffic or boost their search engine position, I did (back before October of last year). It can't be self promotion if the self isn't doing the promoting. If that was the way things worked, what prevents someone from effectively sabotaging a site?
  3. Many people other than me have wanted to add links to articles on the site. Why should that be prevented if the concern is self-promotion?
  4. Isn't the blacklist reserved for issues that can't be dealt with via the normal methods (i.e., blocking, etc.)?
I'm not looking to get into a big argument here, just sincerely am looking for some answers. I hope you can help. uriah923 14:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The sensibility against spam is constantly increasing on wikies and other collaborative environments. I understand that sometimes there is the risk to cause some trouble, but external links should always be carefully considered and all the restrictions applied with no hesitation. --M/
The problem I see is that the links have not been carefully considered, but categorically erased. If you would, please consider one example. In this diff the link removed meets all of the criteria for an external link (added by a third party, well documented with secodary sources, contains material above that included in the WP article, etc.), but was removed simply because of the URL. The link inserted is a definite downgrade to the encyclopedic value of the article.
Additionally, what restrictions were applied by making this change? The link was added in this diff by a long standing user. This can in no way be construed as an attempt by me or especially by OmniNerd to improve traffic or increase page rank.
Can you not understand why I would be protesting? Can you also not see that it is at least possible that content from the blocked domain might make a legitimate external link? uriah923 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I cannot understand your protest, since the links that I've seen are related to much different things, on articles that are not correlated (Battle of Poitiers, ITunes, Rootkit, Hybrid vehicle and Al-Qaeda?). Moreover, I'm not really convinced that - leaving apart "official sites" or primary references - external links to general content (if not unqualified) sites are essential. -M/

I hope you are not suggesting that more than one WP article was linked to the same page on, as that is obviously not the case. If multiple links pointed back to the OmniNerd homepage, then I could understand your problem. On the contrary, each link was to a separate, very applicable, appropriate, well-written and well-documented article. I invite you to do an evaluation of each. The iTunes article contained a link to an article on iTunes with primary information that is not available anywhere else. The Hybrid vehicle article likewise linked to a very prevalent article on hybrids that also contained singular and valuable information. The other sites are the same; each link was to perfectly relevant and equally valuable information.
I urge you to please take a step back and look at the situation. Do you realize that the best argument you can come up with against the domain is that external links aren't "essential?" I'm not surprised that you can't find policy that has been broken (as I can't find it either), but I am surprised that this doesn't betray to you just how silly this whole thing is. In any case, being "non-essential" is not a good argument for blacklisting, and you know that. Thousands of these "non-essential" links are all over, and yet their domains aren't blocked.
I ask you to please take off the blinders and assess the situation as it exists today: a site has been blacklisted not because of the content on the site and not because of any current spamming activities, but because six months ago a user of the site added lots of links to different articles within the same domain. Does that not seem ridiculous? uriah923 21:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I approve this blacklisting and I can state that occurrencies of multiple links to the same domain are currently checked (at least on and if possible removed. The policy is the same about unwanted and unnecessary publicity towards external sites. If you do not agree with this policy, and with its implication, it's your problem. --M/ 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if your interpretation of policy is that just having more than one link to the same domain makes a domain worthy of blacklisting, then OmniNerd would fit into that category. Two more questions:
  1. Why is this policy not consistenty enforced? A quick search for "kuro5hin" on produced a long list of links to articles within the same domain. If you investigate, each of these are far inferior to any article on OmniNerd (no documentation, poor wording, etc.).
  2. How do you justify having this interpretation of the policy? I can find no documentation to support it.
I know my continued questioning is probably frustrating, but I think the inconsistency deserves an explaination and your interpretation requires backing. uriah923 23:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There are not inconsistencies - I'm not patrolling, and I did not violate any policy about Spam blacklist - As one of the admins on Meta, I've been requested for a de-listing action and I've answered no, as for my own bona fide judgement. This should be enough, and it does not require backing at all; I also do not see any benefit for you to ask for appeal to the same person. Please note that I'm not the sole admin here on Meta, and that no one else felt that the action that you requested was the right thing to do. Feel free to contact the Wikimedia Foundation if you're not satisfied, since this is my last answer on this matter. --M/ 09:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Will you please provide information or a link explaining how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation? uriah923 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
foundation:Contact us. Jon Harald Søby 14:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed this application on request, and feel the blacklisting is appropriate. See Spam blacklist/recurring requests for message sent to Uriah923. - Amgine / talk meta 00:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm having problems adding this link,[http://fisheaters dot com/saintsart.html Symbols of the Saints in Art], back to this page, en:Saint symbology. I don't see why it was classed as spam. Evrik 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't add some discussion to en:Talk:Rosary because it has some discussion about fisheaters and it has one reference to fisheaters dot com and it's not even a hyperlink. The discussion is only about removing the fisheater links so I don't understand why I can add anything to that page. Fjord789 06:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The site owner added links repeatedly to the site inappropriately, in violation of w:Wikipedia:External links guidelines. Test edited the Talk:Rosary page, no issues. - Amgine / talk meta 22:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no violation of the rules, which were at the time these: Links to specific, relevant pages at the site were added to specific, relevant entries. An edit war ensued when NON-ADMINISTRATORS went about in a pack one night in December, systematically removing any and all links to the site -- right in the middle of an RfC against one of these non-admins, and right in the middle of requests for abritration, by the site owner, regarding the very questions "how many links are too many?" An admin got involved, called the links "linkspam" designed to "promote pageranking," and the site has been on the s*** list informally or formally ever since, with any link ever added before the blacklist came into play being attributed to the site owner (in spite of the fact that the site in question is a non-commercial site that is one-of-a-kind with regard to Catholicism as practiced by the allowances of Ecclesia Dei -- i.e., traditional Catholicism). I think the site should be removed from the blacklist, that it should be allowed to have links like any other informative website (at least on the entry "Traditionalist Catholics"), and that it should stop being smeared by being grouped with the likes of and I hope an administrator reading this will actually look at the site, look at the rules in play when the (admittedly many) links were added last year, look at the links that had been added last year and see if they were "spammy" or irrelevant, and, finally, get the site off the spamlist.

There was indeed violation of the rules. The site owner edit-warred over the reversion of links (by both administrators and non-administrators, not that it makes any difference), and then rpeeatedly re-inserted them over a period of time often with misleading edit and link summaries. See also the above comment asserting that it is traditional and not traditionalist Catholic content - that is in itself a contentious view, since the traditionalists represent a loose association of adherents of a minor branch of Catholicism dissenting from Vatican II. If the site owner had been anywhere close to reasonable about things there would not have been a problem. en:User:JzG 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Denied. Added appropriately. Restored inapprpriately removed listing. - Amgine / talk meta 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The URL was listed on the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels as an area outside of Wikipedia that Willy on Wheels has vandalized, but when I edited the page, I was forced to remove that URL before I could save the text.

ArmchairGM is also built on the Mediawiki engine and has this spam blacklist referencing it. That seems weird. A website is put on the Spamblacklist when it uses the Spamblacklist? Are we sure this is spam?
See WP:AN/I report, en:Special:Contributions/Roblefko, en:Special:Contributions/Awrigh01. Request denied.

Listing this again, because it was "archived" without discussion, even though two seperate users clearly disagreed with its inclusion on the spam blacklist. [35] [36] (Raul654 removes the requests). This site was not spammed. Articles from this site were linked in approximately two articles, and were relevant to the article they were linked to. The user who added the links may or may not have been banned user Lir, but even if it was, the spam blacklist is not intended for "spam that can be dealt with by user blocking or protection of a small number of pages." Not only is this site not spam, nor ever spammed in the first place, it has also become apparent that this spam blacklist may be copied over to new or upgraded MediaWiki installations (I'm not aware of how this works; only that when ED upgraded, the site in question was blocked), thus potentially leading to collateral damage on projects not even run by Wikimedia. I hereby request removal for the above reasons. --Blu Aardvark 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Request denied. Raul654 23:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, Raul, I believe that you are allowing your own personal grudge against Lir to adversely affect your judgement here. The fact is, including this site on the blacklist harms Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, but even more than that, it harms projects not even run by Wikimedia. --Blu Aardvark 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I see no harm here from the fact that we cannot link to a banned user's hate-fest. In point of fact, there is nothing on his site worth linking to, and the only main-space links to that site were added by Lir himself (while evading his ban). On the contrary, having his site on this list removes any incentive for Lir to spam Wikipedia, which was the reason the site was added here in the first place. Frankly, the fact that it is collaterally blocked on other wikis is gratifying and I hope word will get around such to potential spammers that spamming Wikipedia is a Bad Idea. Raul654 23:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
His site is more than a "hate-fest", although I can grant that one may consider his anti-Wikipedia essay to be. The main space links (two total, not counting the one in Criticism of Wikipedia) may have been made by Lir, granted, although we can't tell that for certain (Lir himself has denied making those edits, although I do grant that, according to his final arbitration case at least, he allegedly has a history of lying). However, two links != spam. Lir did not spam Wikipedia, and as for his incentive to circumvent the ban, that lies in the fact that he believes his ban and his arbitration case to have been handled unfairly. I would argue that the fact that the reason the collateral damage is gratifying would be due to your personal dispute against Lir, of which Wikimedia is not the proper place to carry it out. I believe a nuetral party should review the evidence for "spam", and make a nuetral decision. With all do respect, you are not nuetral. --Blu Aardvark 11:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I second this request. If Raul654 will not remove it, someone else should. Guanaco 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please delist; it is the home of a page "A Criticism of the Wikipedia". I have found this page to be useful, and it is linked from Wikinfo:Critical views of Wikipedia/Link. In the future, I might want to link to it from this Meta Wiki.
The author boasts of evading blocks and adding vandalism on Wikipedia. Even though I do not edit Wikipedia much, I already disagree with some of the criticism. This author should not be editing Wikipedia, and in many cases it would be inappropriate to have a link from Wikipedia to However, this is a Spam blacklist for all Wikimedia, not only for the English Wikipedia. It should be used against WikiSpam, not against the vandal on --Kernigh 21:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (same as Wikipedia:en:User:Kernigh, but I edit Meta more than Wikipedia)

I concur, of course, with the request for removal. This is a spam blacklist, and that site is not being spammed. I do agree in most cases it would be inappropriate to have links to the site, but that is true of tens of thousands of sites on the internet, and so since the links are not being spammed, can and should be dealt with through the normal method (entitled "edit this page"). --Delirium 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur too, with the request for removal. As others have said, this is a spam blacklist. There is no evidence of this site being spammed. — mark 15:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Denied. - Amgine / talk meta 16:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A Mistake?

My apologies if this is the wrong place to post this, but I think that an edit of my user page is being blocked for no reason. The text in question is: overfloow: auto; height: (without the spaces between the colons and with a single o in overflow, I ran into trouble posting this here as well, the system thought it was an external link) This is part of the code for my userbox, so I fail to see why its being blocked by the spam filter. en.User: Kaushik twin

Not a spam blacklist issue. - Amgine / talk meta 21:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

From [37] and [38]. --Rory096 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Denied; appears to be vandals attempting to smear ING, not spam. - Amgine / talk meta 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the URL looks like that, I copied and pasted it with 'copy link location'. Normally it looks like In A spambot has been hopping IPs to add this link to Wikipedia, and switching articles when they get semi-protected. -- 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please link to edits spamming this url? - Amgine / talk meta 01:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I remember seeing it used on the featured articles when they come under attack. Raul654 01:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Denied - Amgine / talk meta

w:GNAA website, being spammed into the IRC room and has been requested to add to the spam blacklist. Zscout370 06:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide links to evidence of spamming? - Amgine / talk meta 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Denied - Amgine / talk meta 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Various spam sites

The following Domains are being used to spam us recently. None of them seem to be on the list.

  • *
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • *

Regards --Stadler 13:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to evidence of spamming? - Amgine / talk meta 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The\.blogspirit\.com domain contains interesting pages (I referenced one in fr:Agrégation de droit), the whole domain should not be blacklisted, only specific blogs. fr:Utilisateur:Apokrif
Denied - Amgine / talk meta 18:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This spammer exceeds the login hurdle. -- Arcy


....:// phenter... (in brackets) 
.... and so on ...

Hi. Like Arcy, we have exactly the same problem at Zappa Wiki Jawaka since December 2005. Thanks for your help. -- Maroual 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Coud you please provide links to diffs showing this domain being added? - Amgine / talk meta 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Denied - Amgine / talk meta 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

From a Spambot

Thank you :)

Could you please link to diffs of this spamming? - Amgine / talk meta 07:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Denied - Amgine / talk meta 18:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Request from en


Repeatedly spammed a few dozen times a day to various musician related articles on en, most of the musicians are obscure so it's probably page rank spam and not actually looking for links. ~en:User:SchmuckyTheCat ~ SchmuckyTheCat 05:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to some evidence (diffs)? - Amgine / talk meta 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Denied - Amgine / talk meta 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rex Curry is a banned user on en and general fun net kook, and has been spamming the English Wikipedia (and the net in general) with links to his own website at (as well as slandering Wikipedia admins). However, he's recently started doing spamming various other language Wikipedias (the talk pages of Adolf Hitler articles), which is time-consuming to clear up. Matt Crypto 08:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please link to evidence of spamming. - Amgine / talk meta 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Denied - Amgine / talk meta 18:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Has been repeatedly SPAMmed on the English WikipediA, with multiple sockpuppets. See the history of w:Talk:Wikipedia for the majority of it. Look for the series of "RVC"s. 02:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Request denied (for now) -- it looks like the work of a single individual to a single article, possibly with the specific intent of getting it blacklisted. I'll reconsider if the problem nature of the spamming changes. Raul654 06:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Evidently there's a legit articel on it now, so it'd definately be a bad idea to blacklist it now ;D! Thanx anyway dude. 23:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You blacklisted wikitruth?!? You gotta be kiddin' me. It's a totally legit website to which many Wikipedia users would like to link. It even has an article in the name space. 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like bullshit big-brotherish cloak-and-dagger crap to me, guys. Wikitruth is OBVIOUSLY not a spam site. They dont sell penis pills, or want you to invest in timeshares, or any of that crap, they are a watchdog agency that is interested in whistle-blowing on any corruption going on in wikipedia. Blacklisting them is only adding fuel to the fire and giving them more ammunition. Jesus, dont you guys know how to politick? --NightDragon 04:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Added, removed, added, removed... - Amgine / talk meta 01:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Has been used to vandalize on the Commons, website is NSFW. Example: [39]. Zscout370 23:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not added (not spammed, just vandalism) - Amgine / talk meta 18:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Has been agressivly spamming (removing other external links in the process) to articles like w:Algorithm and w:Programming languauge since I joined Wikipedia. —Ruud 13:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs and evidence please. Those make it easier to do something. - Taxman 15:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The user in question wa pretty pissed-off after w:Scriptol was deleted, so I think he won't be returning again. —Ruud 23:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As a reply to that, the webmaster started to build its own encyclopedia of programming. It will be better than wikipedia because it will not be influcenced by foolish admin and vandalized be real spammers. Rest in your piss. Splang 05:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a conflict with Ruud about the inclusion of AWK and other legacy stuff in the template of programming languages and the inclusion of Scriptol, and for revenge, Ruud angrily deleted all the links I have added (or he supposes "I" have added) for the domains above, even if these are valuable content in order. The domains (compiler) and (interpreter) were only added to the page of the language. I wonder why a link to compiler on a page of the same language is a spam!

The domain is dedicated to algorithms and programming languages. This is a not commercial, purely educative website, with good content. Thus a link to the website was added on the Algorithm page and on the Programming Languages page. Ruud supposed I have added them, even if the edit was not signed and deleted them. I admit I could have put the links, as I am an user and supporter of Scriptol. But once again I wonder why links to this site may be qualified as spam!!!

Splang 08:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not added - Amgine / talk meta 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Adrian Sfarti continues to add links to his papers all over relativity, aether, and other physics pages. Please update his papers into the spam blacklist. Thank you - Gregory9 00:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this one's been covered, as he is not currently adding them I don't think. Keep the w:WP:AN posted if there are more. - Taxman 22:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Not added - Amgine / talk meta 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

At, an editor has removed a lot, and from what it sounds, this website might not be good. Could this be added, depending on what the consensus is at EN? Thanks. Zscout370 07:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC) is the Open Directory Project. I don't think we want to blacklist that. In fact, we should probably encourage the replacement of lengthy link lists with a single link to dmoz. --Ilmari Karonen 17:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You mean get consensus on en: to blacklist a domain on all the wikis? silsor 05:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
NVM, since EN wants to keep this. Zscout370 07:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It is funny that someone want to blacklist Dmoz, while the guidelines expressely permit to link to open directories, and that lot of categories in Dmoz have a link to WP! Spankman 07:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Not added. - Amgine / talk meta 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Other discussions

Suggestions to improve SpamBlacklist_body.php extension

Current PCRE pattern used for spammer domain blocking
Blocking with regex = logos\.com also blocks domain lexilogos\.com
Work-around: regex = www\.logos\.com
Limitation: Doesn't work for URLs http://logos\.com or http://xxx.logos\.com
change regex pattern [a-z0-9_\-.]* to ([a-z0-9_\-\.]*\.|)
as in:
Application to Spam blacklist
By making the PCRE filter more specific, some previously blocked domains may be unblocked
Example: regexp = sexy-babe\.com would not block domain hot-sexy-babe\.com
Remedy: regexp = [a-z0-9_\-]*sexy-babe\.com would block both domains
Using [a-z0-9_\-]* allows each domain name on the blacklist to be broadened as needed,
as in: regexp = [a-z0-9_\-]*sexy-babe[a-z0-9_\-]*\.com
would block URL http://www.yadayada.999-sexy-babe-xxx\.com
Another suggestion to improve PCRE filter
equivalent to:

PCRE = Perl Compatible Regular Expression

I requested comments from User talk:Tim Starling

--jwalling 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

https* is not equivalent to (http|https), I think you mean https? .
I would do #https?://([a-z0-9_\-.]*\.)*($regexp)(?=(/|$))# to fix the problem that happened with us\.ma and isbe\.ma too. Kotepho 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

I've just added wikipediareview\.com to the blacklist, but not for the normal reasons. I added a few days ago because it was hosting personal information (name, address, phone number, kids names, etc.) of a contributor, all of which was never revealed on any project. The contributor who was "outed" had to leave Wikipedia because the perpetrators contacted his boss and attempted to have him fired; he was also concerned for the physical safety of his family. The doubleblue site was being spammed on Wikipeida, and the only reasonable course to stopping it was to blacklist it. The site has now removed some of the information, but there is no guarantee that it won't reappear; there is, quite honestly, no honor among thieves, nor internet stalkers.

Either the perpetrators of the spamming, or some other individual with similar aims, then posted to Wikipedia Review on the subject. The spammers picked up on this, and have linked to the WR post in order to get around the blacklisting of doubleblue. I've posted to WR on the subject, letting them know I've blacklisted it, and agreeing to remove it if they give assurances that WR will remove the site and prevent it from being replaced, and I hope one of them will contact me shortly.

I have no issues with Wikipedia Review, personally; I've posted there several times, and I have always been very upfront with them about my actions. I believe those who know me, and have seen my posts there will recognize that I am being upfront here as well.

I ask that other admins please not remove Wikipedia Review until the links to doubleblue are removed. Essjay TalkContact 22:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion to the person being harassed (if they are reading this): I suggest they contact their law enforcement agency and find out who is doing this. It's a criminal action. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is Selina (pretty obvious but just want to state it in case people don't realise it's the same one), I just replied to your post: (redirect to Wikipediareview topic since I can't link to it *rolls eyes*)
You didn't mention at all that they were using it to get around the spam blacklist, you only mentioned that here, so is this deliberate misinformation or what?

Show me where the link to the topic has been spammed and I'll sort it out - I can easily just make referers from Wikipedia to that topic go to or something instead so people just think it's a broken link.

However, it doesn't seem very logical when you think about it: "there is no guarantee that it won't reappear" is the reason you've stated for having doubleblue on the blacklist and wikipediareview (because it has a topic that links to it (that sounds so ridiculous, doesn't it?)) - but it's just as likely the information will repappear on Wikipedia or elsewhere if the person feels that strongly about it. However since it *has* been removed, it looks like they've changed their mind or calmed down.

If the information was added back, I would delete links to the site, I definitely don't want to help stalkers. But yeah, there's none of the stuff on the site *anymore* as you say.

Mistress Selina Kyle 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not misinformation, just being in a rush. I find myself a bit busy these days.
Selina, I talked to the guy who was "reported" on the page, quite a few times, and he was literally frightened for his life after what was posted about him; worse than that, he was legitimately afraid for the lives of his children. I've looked it over again, just now, and the offending information has been removed, but I still believe that if they are removed from the blacklist, they will add it again, and will go back to work with thier army of sockpuppets to stalk and harass as many other users as they can. I've interacted with you enough to believe that even with as many problems as you've had on Wikipedia, you don't want to see someone's kids put in danger; even if the people responsible don't act on it, they're making it available and doing everything they can to get someone else to act on it.
For now, I will remove WR from the blacklist; quite obviously, the links to WR have been removed from pages (as blacklisting them prevents page saves until the links are removed) but if you take a look at ANI, you'll see where they were posted. I've never been dishonest with you or anybody else at WR, and I don't intend to start now. Essjay TalkContact 04:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Essjay's behaviour is just the sort of thing that doubleblue is objecting to. The cabal continue to try to suppress facts. And what is being said about KHM03's personal info is not true. I suggest the cabal is investigated and doubleblue given a barnstar for exposing their manipulation of wikipedia for their dangerous ends. 06:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can personally vouch that what Essay is saying agrees with what KHM03 has told me. I also saw the remark on KHM03's family before it was removed from his talk page. Threats to one's family and career are serious buisiness. 08:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC) PS: I don't have a meta account, but you can call me Archola. 10:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Mkay Essjay sorry for perhaps jumping down your throat but it seemed at first more suspicious than it actually was
But yeah, it's silly to target Wikipedia Review when it's quite easy for *anyone* to link to that doubleblue site - in fact by drawing attention to it by mentioning it on the Spam Blacklist you've probably done a lot more harm than good when it seemed a very low-traffic site
In fact after skimming through the referers on Wikipediareview for that topic, it seems people are linking to it from other sites apart from Wikipedia (where it wouldn't matter to direct link to doubleblue, blogs and such commenting on the heavy-handedness -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle 09:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad strategy. We should not be blacklisting an entire forum site because one forum post contains a bad link!

We need a better strategy. --Kernigh 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur; by that criterion, we should blacklist and also. --Delirium 04:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

wikitruth again

The Wikitruth site is now being used to disseminate information that has been deleted from en.wikipedia for legal reasons, and there is strong evidence (in the form of recent screen captures showing admin-only screens) that they're doing this via administrator access to that deleted content. Some Wikipedia trolls are starting to advertise Wikitruth as a way to see this content. Blacklisting this URL would probably be, both morally and legally, the right thing to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a spam blacklist, not the Great firewall of China, some administrators look like they still haven't figured out Wikimedia/Wikipedia is not censored according to all official policy, which is a very early policy set out from the very start of Wikimedia...
Too many people high up seem to want to recreate Wikipedia in their own image, with the Foundation/Jimbo (Jimbo's President for Life of Wikimedia until he dies, after all) seemingly unaware... This is why sites like Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review get created in the first place - they wouldn't exist at all if it were not for the corruption inherent in the system. --Mistress Selina Kyle 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Is that a legal opinion? And will you indemnify the Foundation if you are wrong? No, didn't think so. --Doc glasgow 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is a turn up for the books! It's none too often that I agree with Selina. I would like to voice my total opposition to adding Wikitruth to this spam blacklist. Please find another way to disassociate yourself with the site. Of course, if they start spamming, then add them to the list. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd echo that, particularly now it has been suggested on the record :). Removing the alleged libel is one thing, but if legal action occurred it might be important to show that we'd taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the material was not disseminated further. Perhaps we can't prevent Wikitruth publishing it, but we should prevent any direct links from wikipedia to the material in legal question. (But I am a very rusty lawyer) --Doc glasgow 17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to pass along the request to Brad (the foundation's lawyer) and Jurywiki-l. If they thinks it's a good idea to add it to the blacklist, I'll go ahead and list it. Raul654 17:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello MSK, remember me? Well I just registered on Meta, and I weakly agree with Doc Glasgow, although I suppose this would hurt Wikitruth's Wikipedia article. However, if someone were to sue over deleted content, which is after all authored by Wikipedia, and put there by people who, since some of the editors on Wikitruth are admins, could be seen as 'employees' of the Wikimedia foundation, it would not help to have a link to the content. It is a rather interesting situation, that should probably be carefully considered. Prodego talk 00:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I highly commend the concept of pre-emptive censoring using spam tools. It's a total validation of the concept of making information freely disseminable, and really should be a charter plank in Wikipedia's basic policies and platform. Only thing is, I don't think you guys have taken the idea far enough. Really, any entity that might possibly cause legal action, no matter how tenuous a chain of thought it takes to get to that conclusion, should be placed on the spam blacklist as well. For example, we should add the *.gov domain to the blacklist; we don't want individuals accidentally linking to a top-secret website. Pass the word along to the other language Wikipedias, too, to do the same with their host countries' government. Microsoft and Apple have shown themselves to be fairly litigious; we should probably add them as well. Anyone who's sued users or sent out cease-and-desist letters over deep-linking to specific web pages within their website; well, we don't want to run the risk of that happening on Wikipedia, so let's add them. Oh, and that brings up a good point. Cease-and-desist letters. We should probably make sure Chilling Effects gets that article deleted, since they reprint cease-and-desist letters; we don't want to be linking to them. And, god, the entire Scientology series of articles really needs to go, for obvious reasons. And, frankly, I'm sure if we opened the discussion, we could think of other possible things to add to the blacklist. Really, guys, great concept, bad implemenation -- we really need to censor things much more than you initially considered. But really, though, good start! I was worried about you guys for a while. 11:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I must protest!

I must protest the addition of Wikitruth with no reference to any discussion on the site! All we have is a brief section where Raul654 has said he's going to take the proposed addition of to the spam blacklist. I can't see any reference to this discussion, though of course I may not be looking hard enough.

Please remove Wikitruth from the spam blacklist. It is making it almost impossible to edit the Wikitruth article on Wikipedia. I certainly can't add several sources, which come from the website itself.

I urge the Wikimedia admins (or the WMF, whoever responds first) to remove from the spam blacklist.

Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd need to take it up with Brad Patrick, it has been blacklisted on his legal advice. --Doc glasgow 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see the legal advise then, as I'd be very interested in what was said from a legal perspective. Blocking a URL is something we should be doing legally?! That seems remarkably spurious. What is Brad Patrick's email address? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The word "tough" comes to mind. The Foundation's decision to block sites from links is absolute, and Brad's job is to give advice to the Board, not to random people who are curious - you don't get Shell's legal department writing a nice note for you setting out why they've stopped selling charcoal briquettes, or whatever. :-)
James F. (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Considering I have had a reply from Brad, I find your comments quite incredible. I might also point out that not all WMF board members agree with adding Wikitruth to this spam list. "Tough" indeed. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The question is, was this legal advice to the Board, which the Board has acted on, or just his personal opinion that it would be sensible? Raul himself has commented on en:Talk:Wikitruth that it was NOT a Foundation action. The wub 23:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
From how I understand it, it was his personal opinion, not something he advised the board on. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of it being blacklisted either (especially on the "Spam blacklist"; they weren't spamming). No I don't like what they do, no I don't like what they say, but the blame for how the content got there is with the WMF (content is never (or rarely) literally deleted). There needs to be some new level of deletion added to MediaWiki that only allows people like Danny or Jimbo (or the lawyers) to view or restore items deleted to this level. That would solve a majority of the problems with WikiTruth. —Locke Coletc 06:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Or as I have suggested, let's get a log of all admins viewing the deleted revisions also. 100% agree with Locke Cole. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-05" page.