Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-03

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

I believe this is the right place for this note, please leave a message at English Wikipedia user:Bcnviajero talk page if not. The website, a travel agency promoting tours etc, has been extensively spamming a vast number of articles in many different language versions of Wikipedia for a long period of time. They have been doing this to anything related to Italy and, indeed to other topics. It seems to me that they should be considered for a general block. -- 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Widely used, did not have the time to take a closer look now 57, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the link was spammed on en.wikipedia. The few articles I checked in other languages had the link in the first version, the article was probably translated from English and the link just came over with the rest.
Do you have any examples of the link being inserted recently? --Jorunn 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I am not sure where it has been inserted recently, most of the insertions seem to have been made a while ago. I removed 84 spam links to this site from the English WP a few days ago but don't have the time to do the same everywhere else. -- 11:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wondered if there is any news on this? The link is still spammed on a large number of different Wikipedia sites, and it would seem to make sense to me to block it...but I am not as familar as you with with the requirements for this to take place. -- 09:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See also WikiProject_Spam case

Cross Wiki spamming

Forum spam, all cleaned. Thanks,--Hu12 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  Done, thanks for reporting — VasilievVV 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks VasilievVV--Hu12 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Linksearch meta - en - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchVeinor pagesmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

IP's inserting the link:

--Jorunn 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jorunn, good work &   Done --Herby talk thyme 08:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC) has spammed this url to many wikis. -- Atluxity 16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - I've   Done this. It sure is cross wiki in a big way. BUT because of the way they have done it there won't be any warnings which I don't like. So it is listed to prevent further disruption and I think that if it is appealed it should be considered carefully given the fact they really cannot have known the consequences of the link placement (& I like extreme sports :)). Thanks Atluxity --Herby talk thyme 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This domain was spammed to en.wikipedia using an open proxy[1]. I consider spamming through an open proxy a clear sign of very bad faith and worthy of blacklisting on sight. A quick Google search turns up some similar indiscriminate spamming of this domain against unrelated web sites. I'm inclined to blacklist here even though the only Wikimedia spamming was on en.wikipedia; I think the other spamming is indiscriminate enough that this spammer might attack other Wikimedia and MediaWiki projects. The porn pages spammed have no value that I can tell.

It's possible this is a spambot.

Comments? --A. B. (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically I agree with you. The site really has no value to the Foundation at all. However - the links were not clickable based on the link you gave. As such blacklisting would have no practical effect for Foundations sites or am I getting something wrong here? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Has been spammed on Wikipedia by vandal IPs.--Urban Rose 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is solely an en wp matter please make a request there (w:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist). You will need to provide links as evidence either there or here - thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The webhost (I suspect) of this site has been on a mission to attach a link to this page from Wiki's w:Badfinger article. Anyone making even a perusal of his site will quickly note the defamatory tone of it. This site was removed by Virgin Media from its servers after it was alerted to the intention of the page. The site has now resurfaced on 1asphost, which seems less inclined to take action. With this in mind, I am hoping a WP administrator will examine the site and then agree that this is not a proper link for Wikipedia. Thank you. -- 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is solely an en wp matter please make a request there (w:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist). You can provide links as evidence there - thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

See also WikiProject_Spam case

Massive cross wiki Spamming

. Thanks, --Hu12 05:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  Added, thanks for reporting — VasilievVV 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks VasilievVV. --Hu12 19:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See also WikiProject_Spam case

Cross wiki spamming

. Thanks, all cleaned up--Hu12 19:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  Added, thanks — VasilievVV 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross wiki spamming Linksearch meta - en - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchVeinor pagesmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

IP inserting the link: --Jorunn 10:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jorunn   Done, regards --Herby talk thyme 12:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.
For reference:
The link was used to get around the blacklisting of and
See: Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/
--Jorunn 14:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thought it looked rather familiar, thanks for the work & vigilance --Herby talk thyme 15:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC),

Spams links to history articles and links to asbestos and other articles


Google Adsense ID: 9444630089870529

There are still about 40 of these links to be cleaned up before blacklisting.--A. B. (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think there are some related domains, but I did not have time to investigate further. --A. B. (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I keep thinking you will come back to this but given that you haven't & it is cross wiki   Done --Herby talk thyme 15:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross wiki spamming Linksearch meta - en - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchVeinor pagesmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

IP inserting the link:

User inserting the link:

--Jorunn 08:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Done thanks Jorunn, regards --Herby talk thyme 09:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC) +

Cross wiki spamming

IP inserting the links:

--Jorunn 09:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Done thanks Jorunn --Herby talk thyme 09:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross wiki Spamming of Adsense related

See also WikiProject_Spam case

Cross WIki spam

Multiple IP's, Multiple account creations. All cleaned. Thanks, --Hu12 14:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work Hu12 -   Done --Herby talk thyme 14:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again--Hu12 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

smileurl (an other url shortener)

Apparently there is an other URL shortener that can be used to bypass the blacklist: http://*

I crossed it on EN.WP [2] [3] [4] but I guess it would make more sense to blacklist it here directly. -- lucasbfr talk 12:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting it -   Done, regards --Herby talk thyme 12:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User page spammer

See also WikiProject_Spam case

  • \bdailyserver\.com\b
  • \bconference-coordinator\.com\b
  • \bgtp-icommerce\.com\b
  • \bbellaerotic\.com\b
  • \bdiscountcouponsguide\.com\b
  • \bnewcharlotterealestate\.com\b
  • \bthenewthinme\.com\b
  • \bresellitforprofit\.com\b
  • \bactionprintinginc\.com\b
  • \bvalentines-day-hot-deals\.php\b
  • \bbody1\.co\.uk\b
  • \binmotionhostingreview\.org\b
  • \bwatchanytv\.com\b
  • \blinks\.com\b
  • \bpokermarketingcode\.com\b
  • \bpokerdeal\.org\b
  • \bsite5review\.org\b
  • \bsecuritysystemsreview\.com\b
  • \bunblockedfacebook\.org\b
  • \\b
  • \bcheapturkey\.org\.uk\b
  • \bicmeler\.org\.uk\b
  • \bzeolitedirect\.com\b
  • \b1ThinkHealthy\.com\b
  • \bwatchavatarchapters\.net\b
  • \bloyolaneworleansonline\.com\b
  • \bscrantonuniversityonline\.com\b
  • \bgizmoactivemobile\.com\b
  • \bsityodtongla\.com\b
  • \bgiftgadgetgateway\.com\b
  • \bpregnancy-period\.com\b
  • \boeinet\.org\b
  • \\b
  • \bhugegamestore\.com\b
  • \bfamousstamps\.org\b
  • \blocateaprinter\.com\b
  • \bhosticanreview\.org\b
  • \bapply-for-a-credit-card-now\.com\b
  • \bbuyplumbing\.co\.uk\b
  • \bgizmoactive\.com\b
  • \btahitinonijuice\.info\b
  • \bnoni247\.com\b
  • \bcontractpal\.com\b
  • \\b
  • \\b
  • \bseattle-divorce-lawyer\.com\b
  • \bfreebiefree\.com\b
  • \bgames2relax\.com\b
  • \brakeback\.com\b
  • \bhosticanreview\.org\b
  • \bmoleskinsoft\.com\b
  • \ballneonsigns\.com\b
  • \bthesitebox\.com\b
  • \bericton\.com\b
  • \btresamigosworldimports\.com\b
  • \bturborevs\.org\.uk\b
  • \blooknooks\.com\b
  • \bcrystalimage\.us\b
  • \bwonderjewels\.us\b
  • \bsunlight-bingo\.co\.uk\b
  • \binstylepatio\.com\b
  • \bghilliesuitsonline\.com\b
  • \bmonsterbreakbilliards\.com\b
  • \bvideosytal\.com\b
  • \bgadgets-club\.com\b
  • \bVisual8\.com\b
  • \balltomkredit\.se\b
  • \bapxalarmreview\.com\b
  • \bunblockbebo\.biz\b
  • \bmolsoncanadian\.ca\b
  • \bholidayclick\.co\.uk\b
  • \bneighborhoodbistro\.com\b
  • \bdir\.vc\b
  • \bthe-clap\.com\b
  • \bbolly\.in\b
  • \bsell-my-house-fast\.org\b
  • \blocateapsychologist\.com\b
  • \bqualitygamers\.com\b
  • \bturborevs\.org\.uk\b
  • \btopcanoe\.com\b
  • \bbumriches\.com\b
  • \bsurewomen\.com\b
  • \bnewhopemedicalcenter\.com\b
  • \bfunny-stuff-central\.com\b
  • \bkaffe1\.no\b
  • \\b
  • \bcaveon\.com\b
  • \bsupremedefense\.com\b
  • \bcarshelpingamerica\.org\b
  • \bopenzend\.com\b
  • \bno1tele\.com\b
  • \bafghanunited\.com\b
  • \bnelsonmortgages\.co\.uk\b
  • \bguitarlesson\.ws\b
  • \bstretch-mark-cream\.us\b
  • \bdirectoryofonlinepoker\.com\b
  • \buspublicrecords\.com\b
  • \bmycincinnatiohiohomeinspector\.com* \b
  • \bohiohomeinspectorhome\.com\b
  • \bohioinspector\.com\b
  • \bsoberseek\.com\b
  • \bbarcodecreator\.eu\b
  • \bcedarwooddoghouses\.com\b
  • \bsaxen\.co\.uk\b
  • \bproductlaunchformulareviews\.com\b

Large amount of abuse. Since these are now BL'd on the en.wikipedia, the threat to other wikis has increased. Thanks, --Hu12 15:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  On hold, since no global spamming yet — VasilievVV 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at:

For comparison to the case, which is essentially the same problem:

Most recent discussion at the admin's noticeboard shows a clear consensus to blacklist this site. Essentially, the problem is that anyone is allowed to post their own articles there, with no editorial oversight. Additionally, authors there get paid by the pageview, so there's a clear incentive to spam links to them. At current count, there are 731 links on en.wikipedia, 13 on fr, 7 on de, and I haven't exhausted my searching options yet.

I believe that blacklisting won't remove current links, but it should at least help us stop more from propagating. We've dealt with this site in the past, and removing the links just resulted in even more showing up. Once we have this under control, we can decide what to do with all the existing links. (Likely the only page that we should allow to keep a link there would be en:Associated Content (and other language versions, of course).) Infophile 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from however I think more investigation is required on this. I've looked at some on fr wp (I can get the basics in French better than German!). The links seem like they are added by bona fide registered users. Certainly there is an en wp issue & the site probably should be blacklisted there but this list is for current cross wiki link placement & I think some thought is needed before that can be said with certainty, thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the consensus formed was that there really should be no reason to link to this site. Any good faith links may simply be users not understanding the policies well enough. In any case, I'll put up a request at the enWiki blacklist for the time being. Infophile 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Spamsearch results at w:User:MER-C/ 08:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, cross wiki. I want that tool...--Hu12 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not convinced on this one. I checked out the Commons links today - there is nothing at all spammy about the few that are there. I see en wp has an issue with this, I am not certain it is a meta one --Herby talk thyme 18:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

SEO and adsense related

See WikiProject Spam Item


Cross Wiki

Got some of the cross wiki spamming, however the toolserver crapped out. But I think it obvious with just these few. --Hu12 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Declined: crosswiki spam in your links I found only for and it was in June 2007 — VasilievVV 07:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More URL Shrinking Domains

provided by a spammer on the page for TinyURL.

This list includes the domain name provided by the spammer & others domains which were listed as available options on the site.


--Versageek 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortified and   Added, thanks — VasilievVV 06:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Another of interest --Hu12 02:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross wiki, see COIBot report, now disruptively added to, I think only by one IP.

Note: already blacklisted in portugal (pt?): diff (and hence picked up by COIBot). --Beetstra 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  Added, thanks — VasilievVV 17:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Should add these also, related to the above. --Hu12 14:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The kefir ones I looked at were old (middle of last year) so not a current problem. I'm inclined to list the one but again there are no recent ones? Equally there is an appeal below & I'd like to see how that plays first (I've removed a few of the other links). Watching this & thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC) +

Cross wiki spamming

IP inserting the links:

-Jorunn 00:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  Added, thanks for reporting — VasilievVV 06:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Adsense spammer

From en:WP:AN.

See also - en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1#Tamil_celebrity_spam
See also - en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_1#Dot_Com_Infoway_company_Adsense_related_marketing_Spamming
See also - en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Webgeek

Adsense pub-9515873777130697 .info's
pub-4598819753511212 some .com's related to Dot Com Infoway &


Dot Com Infoway is a marketing strategy and content developer, spamming Wikipedia on an incredibly large scale for several years. Both link and reference spamming. Also engages in link vandalism and article vandalism[5]. sites without adsense are "This site has been conceptualized, designed and created by Dot Com Infoway & " --Hu12 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I brought this here because it is a large-scale spamming campaign with at least some cross-wiki action. JzG 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
As a copy of the en wp stuff quite a bit of the above does not "work" due to template differences etc. Something that actually shows this as cross wiki would be helpful. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And - digging some. I just tried 8 of the domains with eagle (top 20) & I have only come up with three non en wp links so far. --Herby talk thyme 16:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and I nuked a few that I found. But it has been going on a long time, across multiple accounts, and does extend to multiple projects. JzG 19:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--Hu12 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The spamsearch results for are where the majority of the x-wiki spam lies. 04:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, I strongly support blacklisting. This is unquestionably abusive behaviour and spreads across multiple projects. JzG 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • clear multiple project abuse in the spamsearch link above, blatent misuse of our wikis--Hu12 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  Added - looks like an issue. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross wiki Linksearch meta - en - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchVeinor pagesmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

IPs inserting the link:

--Jorunn 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Seem to be on-topic link. Are you sure that it's spam? — VasilievVV 07:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Could be an issue - the en wp ones are reverted by registered users so the links are not wanted. However no warnings have been given on en wp & I have now done that. I think this may be an issue but I'm not sure blacklisting is appropriate yet --Herby talk thyme 10:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying the site is spam, I am saying the link has been added excecivly and in a disruptive manner, and that the insertion of the links is done with COI. See for instance
or no:wikipedia where was blocked for spamming 15. mar 2008 kl. 20:02 and then made this edit: [14] 10 minutes later.
The link has been added to 40 or more Wikipedia articles (in most of them at least twice) about Oradea by IPs from the same ISP within one day.
--Jorunn 10:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional info Jorunn. Based on that I agree, cross wiki & disruptive &   Done --Herby talk thyme 12:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Affiliate and referral spam


These may or may not have been added here--Hu12 02:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence that this is a cross wiki issues? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • any cross wiki search will yield amazon refferal/affiliate (gp, cm?t, astore and tag= ) results.

Both moneybookers (de, nl and fr), and amazon (too numerous) are global wikipedia issues, however, any use of affiliate and referral linking on any of the Wikimedia Foundation wikis is spam and unacceptable regardless. The regex only prevents affiliate/refferal linking and does no affect legitimate linking to these sites.--Hu12 16:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed & thanks Hu12,   Done --Herby talk thyme 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

They're back... Linksearch meta - en - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchVeinor pagesmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

Previous incidents

And it's cross-wiki too. See [15]. 11:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep - given the history   Done & thanks. I guess we will now go through the "alternative" domains again! --Herby talk thyme 11:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Previously debated at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04#Intellectual property dispute / and blacklisted, blacklist subsequently removed.

The owners of, Carmelo Lisciotto and Chris Webb, acknowledged int he past that they added many links to on various language projects. The owners of both sites have sent complaints to the Wikimedia Foundation that the other infringes their copyright. The root of the dispute appears to be a past falling-out between the owners of the deathcamps site, and a subsequent dispute over ownership of the associated intellectual property.

The owners of demand that we remove and blacklist all links to, but that would require us to take sides in an external intellectual property dispute. OTRS tickets 2007031910009401, 2007042710008903,2007042710008896, 2007041310015789, 2007040310004452, 2006042010014509 relate. The owners of the other site assert that they are the rightful owners, see - and the owners of the non-hyphenated site are still edit warring over the variants, see for just one example.

  • On DE, where deathcamps was whitelisted after the original double blacklisting:
  • on HE:

Frankly I'm becoming very tired of these guys demanding that we remove links (that don't exist on most projects) and blacklist to prevent their re-addition, I honestly think we should blacklist both until such time as the external IP dispute is resolved by the courts. For the record I actually believe Lisciotto, but he is unwilling to accept that we cannot be arbiters in his external dispute. JzG 15:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have OTRS access so it would not be appropriate for me to deal with this one --Herby talk thyme 16:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Time you did, Herby. I can put a good word in with Cary :-) JzG 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, [18] [19] - We're likely to get a lot of requests about this. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with blacklisting this site. It's a reliable source as far as I know and that they want to be less known is their own problem - Wikipedia is not censored, and removing references and damaging articles is simply bad. PS. Referencing a source is perfectly valid; it's not our problems that the source authors/owners have some legal fallout with each other.--Piotrus 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not personally fond of the idea either, but we need to do something wrt the conflict. Apologies for removing the references, but this way it doesn't stall anyone else willing to work on the articles with different sources. As I'm involved as the person adding the entries to the blacklist, I'd request someone else create a RFC page where we can discuss the issues and come to a acceptable conclusion (or at least compromise of some sort)? ~Kylu (u|t) 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See also WikiProject_Spam case (has a list of past crosswiki)

Resumed cross wiki spamming

Looks like the spamming has resumed. All cleaned. Thanks, --Hu12 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • This was recently removed form the blacklist, I think - OTRS ticket 2008011610016161 on 16 January was a request from the site owner to remove from the blacklist because the spamming was by "interns"; a request in January was declined. Clearly as soon as the blacklisting was lifted, they hired more interns. And forgot to tell them not to spam Wikipedia. Or maybe (terrible, unworthy thought) they were lying about the interns and are just a bunch of spammers. Either way, I strongly advocate putting this back on the blacklist. What's really odd is I can't find where it was added or removed. JzG 16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't find three links only all that convincing. Equally the de IP was placing other external links too? (And I think it may have only been listed on en wp before?) --Herby talk thyme 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The spam project report shows quite a bit. JzG 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
See User:COIBot/LinkReports/, by the looks of it there has been some spam, but nothing that is continuing anymore atm. Lets wait and see. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

hiphop spammer (again)

This one seems resilient. and are already on this blacklist, now:

related seems to be:

(COIBot report for is coming on). We might want to keep an eye on special:linksearch/ ( is the IP of all these urls). Please add, the other one might need a bit of research. --Beetstra 09:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Beetstra. hiphop   Added (some people don't get the message), watching --Herby talk thyme 09:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC) and

See User:Eagle_101/ and User:Eagle_101/ for evidence of crosswiki spamming. Same IP, in both cases.

  Done - doing this myself —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another cross wiki spammer.

  1. (it_wikipedia) 2008-03-20 21:01:06 -- -- -- diff
  2. (hu_wikipedia) 2008-03-20 21:11:06 -- -- -- diff
  3. (pam_wikipedia) 2008-03-20 21:28:54 -- -- -- diff
  4. (ru_wikipedia) 2008-03-20 21:36:14 -- -- -- diff
  5. (tr_wikipedia) 2008-03-20 21:43:04 -- -- -- diff
  6. (zh-yue_wikipedia) 2008-03-20 21:48:17 -- -- -- diff

—— Eagle101 Need help? 01:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  Added. Please, don't link on spam-site when reporting (because it would be blocked) — VasilievVV 09:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh duh! Thanks for reminding me :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 11:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. (en_wikipedia) 2008-03-21 03:19:47 -- -- -- diff
  2. (en_wikipedia) 2008-03-21 03:35:02 -- -- -- diff
  3. (fr_wikipedia) 2008-03-21 03:53:21 -- -- -- diff
  4. (de_wikipedia) 2008-03-21 03:58:32 -- -- -- diff
  5. (vi_wikipedia) 2008-03-21 04:05:43 -- -- -- diff
  6. (nl_wikipedia) 2008-03-21 04:49:42 -- -- -- diff
  7. (it_wikipedia) 2008-03-21 05:31:46 -- -- -- diff

Blacklisting this one myself.   Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 11:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. (en_wikipedia) 2008-03-21 07:59:01 -- -- -- diff
  2. (fr_wikipedia) 2008-03-21 09:16:46 -- -- -- diff
  3. (de_wikipedia) 2008-03-21 09:29:44 -- -- -- diff

Full report at User:COIBot/LinkReports/ —— Eagle101 Need help? 13:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Three links on the top 20 -   Declined --Herby talk thyme 14:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thats fine I've reverted those so far. Just so you know I'm field testing a new tool for finding cross wiki spam. :) I'm hoping to make detection automatic, instead of having to watch a feed or crawl through diffs. :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 14:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

An other tiny-url clone: used to avoid the blacklist. Can you please add it to the extensive list? It has apparently be used to insert malicious links on en:wp. Thanks :) -- lucasbfr talk 12:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks   Added --Herby talk thyme 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On, see [20], [21], [22]. Thanks, Dori | Talk 15:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is just an sq wiki issue (& I haven't enough time to check then) it should be on the sq:wp:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist probably by asking sq:wp:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist though you are a sysop? If so just add \bshtepiaelibrit\.com\b to the sq:wp:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that there was a local place to put them. Thanks. Dori | Talk 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Smart Traffic Ltd. (Cornwall) spam on Wikipedia, Wiktionary

Spammed domains


Related domains[23]

Google Adsense IDs
  • 3651094595088074
  • 6799658352678478


--A. B. (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  Done --A. B. (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Crosswiki spammer - Israel based advertising/marketing agency spams for clients

See here for complete file. - is the subrange of this company. spam-urls placed on several wiki's were:

Kind regards, MoiraMoira 08:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

From luxo I get 6 contribution on 4 projects. A bit more info would be more than useful? --Herby talk thyme 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was still working on it but got a server disconnect. I added the info above in the mean time. MoiraMoira 08:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Short on time but will get to it in a couple of hours I hope, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok -   Added now thanks - won't log until I can see that resolved, cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional spamming done since my report:

Thanx in advance again for adding these as well (note the dash on the end). MoiraMoira 14:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - some of the last lot done some not (I was adding them as you were editing this page!). I've also fixed the "/" I hope. If no one else does I'll get the rest done in a bit --Herby talk thyme 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  Added the rest --Herby talk thyme 15:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all your work Herby! I have an inkling we haven't heard the last of this company yet and that there will be many more sister-pages in more language to come and block... Kind regards, MoiraMoira 23:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

The following discussion is closed. Linksearch meta - en - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchVeinor pagesmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:


Cross Wiki spamming

- --Today40 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

NOW I make a objections!

  • Site removed from Russian blacklist by administrators.
  • Warnings about spam are more than eight months old, I am deleted warnings due to misunderstandings, and relevant administrators long time accept my apologies. From the May onward, I am not add anything of such a sort and haven't any warnings.
  • Altought I haven'a any desire to add any links in the English section, apart from returning the ones, which approved in the May, please remove this black sore from my reputation. Best wishes.
  • And you filter blocked my efforts in Ru.Wikipedia, where I was found not guilty just a hours ago. 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (Vladimir Nosov).

The request seems perfectly valid to me (here). The link was placed just 10 days ago on es wiki. As such there is evidence of cross wiki link placement which is what this list is about. I suggest that you seek local whitelisting on ru wp to allow you to place links there assuming teh community is happy with that. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Already removed from RU.list! [24]. But when I try place a link, soft tell me "you're blocked by En.spam blacklist". And Spanish section adventure is only due to removal of valid link to Spanish-language article. Please, to do something (and i cannot signed my name). The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Yes - however as it is blacklisted here it affects link placement on all wikis. So please request whitelisting on ru wiki and then you will be able to place a link there if they agree. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
How I can to do this? Let me know. I think previously, that removing from the list, as it is in case of RU.list, is enough to counted himself as whitelisted, so I am now in a some confusion.

This site is blacklisted here at Meta. As such links cannot be added to any Foundation wiki (& some other wikis too). Based on the request, as links were placed across wikis that seems reasonable. So in order to place a link on ru wiki you would need to request whitelisting on ru wiki. Based on other wikis you would need to ask here for that listing, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also note, that it was removed from ruwiki spam blacklist just because of assuming good faith. I think this should be declined — VasilievVV 11:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  Declined per VasilievVV & earlier comments --Herby talk thyme 13:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
But site is just whitelisted. Please reconsider your decision.

  Removed. After discussion the user promised me that he won't spam anymore. So, let's assume good faith and remove it on last-warning basis — VasilievVV 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


What's wrong with the links containing the word "vegetarian"? This spam filter just blocked today the saving of a minor edit in an article with a reference to a web site related to vegetarianism. There is huge number of good sources on this issue which have a world "vegetarian" in their URL. I don't see any reason for blocking EVERYTHING with a world vegetarian. Such web sites can be as pro as also contra - just blocking everything can be seen as a NPOV violation! Please remove this world from a spam list asap. Alex Ex 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The only listed site is any other site with vegetarian in should be ok (the regex looks ok). What link are you trying to place and on which wiki? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
On ru:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist also is blocked, maybe he meant this site. On de and nothing found (searched the wikis that he had on his userpage) Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 10:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't understand, why your spam-bot is blocked this site? The website hasn't any advertising or bad information. It's only a russian provider website - Olympus NSP. Please, unblock this site, becouse without this link an article about this provider is not full. -- 09:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Olympus is not blocked on the list here (although video.olympus is). It is possible that it is blocked on the local blacklist where you were trying to place the link?)? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
In the Russian Wikipedia -- 08:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying to link or just I can see no reason why you should not be bale to link as far as Meta is concerned. --Herby talk thyme 13:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to link only -- 09:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

test - given that I can place the link here it must be something in the ru filters that is preventing you from placing the link. You will need to enquire of ru admins on the blacklist there (although I could not see it there myself). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed.

While this website cannot be used as a reliable source, it is not spam and it does not have a bot which adds links. Putting this site on the spam blacklist will mainly have the effect of confusing new Wikipedia users, such as 4chan visitors trying to improve Internet culture articles. By leaving this on the blacklist you label non-spam edits as spam, which is counterintuitive. By taking it off we can deal with mistaken ED references the way we deal with any other nonreliable source. Ashibaka 07:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Declined after extensive & quite recent discussion. I see no reason why this would not remain on the list --Herby talk thyme 08:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That discussion seems sensible to me, I revoke my request. Ashibaka 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose the removal of from the blacklist. Multiple links from the site were placed in various Wikipedia articles. I would like to apologize on behalf of for this abusive practice. Our staff and management have gone through great changes since, including a change in policy. We are currently one of the fastest growing communities on the internet. The purpose of is to provide entertaining and helpful information for parents and parents to be on pregnancy and given name issues. I would like to ask you to remove us from the blacklist for the sole purpose of clearing our reputation. We have no interest in going back to placing links on Wiki sites. Please take this statement as a guarantee that no further link will be placed by us on a Wiki site. I would be glad to provide you with a written and signed statement by the site owner in confirmation of this statement. Our policy has changed and we would like our record cleared. I appreciate the great effort Wiki team members put into preserving the legitimacy of every page on Wikimedia and the time and attention that is given to every removal request. Thank you in advance for considering this matter. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 Feb 2008 (UTC)

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 encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address:
  Declined --A. B. (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing our case. As stated above, I would like to make it clear that our interest is not in placing further links but rather in clearing our reputation and being removed from the list. We are one of the fastest growing communities on the internet and we would like our record cleared. Links were placed on Wiki sites with valid information. There were various other given name sites whose links were placed in Wiki articles at the time. This policy however has been changed and we will not be placing further links on any Wiki site. The purpose of this request is not so that we can sneak in further links once removed, but rather to be taken off a list that classifies our site with the derogatory term of "spammer." As a site editor myself, I understand the time-consuming and irritating task of removing unwanted spam - please take this as a guarantee that no further links will be placed on wiki sites. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed.

With reference to your last reply written by --A. B.

We are a holiday company and therefore yes, have several websites registered under the same IP address. I have added no links to Resort Properties World, Tenerife Dreams or The Timeshare Forum. I did add 2 or 3 links to Loving Dubai after writing around 3,000 words of content for Wikipedia about Dubai, but this is classed as Spam by you and has also been blocked! I Turned 3 of your studs about the emirate into full articles. Perhaps i should now go back and remove all of my own work seeing as you removed the only bit of information that links it to me! I frequently add information to wikipedia so i myself should be classed as an editor of this site. How much information do i need to add before i am classed as a "high-volume" editor? I have in no way abused wikipedia and what you try to do. I think the whole concept is a great idea, however, i am concerned that you don't really look at individual cases for what they are. As a large company it is impossible to monitor what each member of IT are doing, and although it was unfortunate that the last administrator abused his power over the wiki editing after such a great deal of time i think you should give someone new the benefit of the doubt until they too give you reason to doubt their intentions. It would be reasonable, in my opinion, to allow a probation period where you monitor the additions anyone recently removed from the blacklist makes until such a time has passed that you can trust them not to make the same mistake again. --Talatie

As you state you are a holiday company, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and, as such, is really not at all likely to require links to any of your websites. You really would be better concentrating on other ways to promote your company. Contributions that are of an encyclopaedic nature are always welcome however those made with the intention of adding a link to a website that you have an interest in will be considered as a conflict of interest at best --Herby talk thyme 12:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition - you state that that the last administrator abused his power over the wiki editing however the IP you are editing from (apparently) placed external links on en wp as recently as early February this year suggesting that someone still needs to understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for external links connected to your company --Herby talk thyme 12:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed as   Declined --Herby talk thyme 09:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this link is in the black list because of my fault, when i was a newbie i started including it everywhere. It's been a year and a half, and i'm now quite a best contributor in es:, and the link is now only where it belongs. So i request the removal from the list. Thanks, Gons (¿Digame?) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC).

Given the placement of cross wiki links (here) I would suggest that you seek whitelisting on es wiki which is presumably where you think the link might be appropriate? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, Gons (¿Digame?) 15:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC).


The following discussion is closed.

A. Andreas wrote: > Tim, > > Unfortunately , some(thing)one. succeeded to put the url of > in several spam blacklists, as you are ? responsible > for distributing these list, I urge you to correct these lists and > leave out our url. > > Nictoglobe is a genuine and reliable website delivering news and art > to a wide audience and is well recognized among (inter) national art > audiences. > > I regret that some(one)thing abused your blacklist system by putting > our url into it. > > Please let me know about actions you are able to take to correct this > mistake.

I do not maintain or administer any URL blacklists, I only maintain the software used to interpret and enforce them. If the problem is on a Wikimedia wiki, please take your complaint to:

If the wiki in question is not operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, then complain to the site administrator of that wiki.

-- Tim Starling

As I am suspecting some asian wiki to have produced this entry and I am not able to contact them, as they do not reply , I urge you to remove the blacklisted url,i.e.


A. Andreas Editor The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 11:03, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

In practice this website is not blacklisted here on Meta (nor on English Wikipedia). It may be blacklisted on a local list (if there is a wiki that you cannot place the link on). Thanks--Herby talk thyme 11:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dear community, my site is the automobile encyclopedia and is called to unite owners of ancient cars worldwide. Remove in blacklist, please The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richi (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

  •   Not done [25], No reason given for unlisting, and we don't normally de-blacklist this soon after addition or at the request of the site owner. Debate is not even archived yet (see above). JzG 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reason for unlisting is grantings to users wiki more information on automobile history.All external links to strictly thematically, It not a spam.
Richi, please see my response to your earlier comments above. --A. B. (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing the blacklist be removed. I added the links to articles that the webiste has expertise and research on (like "leadership) and was probably somewhat overeager! Happy to remove them, won't do it again! Link is relavent to articles actually about Common Purpose so would like to unlist. Acceptable? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 12:15, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Ok - taking a look at this.
The website seems unencyclopaedic for a start with a preference for selling leadership course - obvious fine that you do that but not relevant to Wikipedias.
Equally the link placement is extensive (seen here). In each case 12 or so links were placed with no regards for the language of the wiki concerned based on the ones I've looked at. Others may wish to comment (the listing request is here). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Endorse refusal to remove. Your edits were extensive and excessive, and you are the only editor using the link (are you related to the link?). You already got blacklisted on the portuguese wiki, so it appears you are more interested in getting the link on pages than to contribute content. We are writing an encyclopedia here. --Beetstra 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  Not done - thirded. Come back in a month or so, and we can look at the situation again. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a lot of reason to come back in a month. That's because we don't normally 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 encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.

This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.

Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address:
--A. B. (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Aye. I have an idea of the appropriate interval for delisting spammed domains at the request of their owners. JzG 21:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.

Rule in error

As COIBot repeatedly crashed upon loading the regexes from the meta blacklist, I found that there was a rule with an error. The regex '\bweb\.archive\.org[^ ]{0,50}obsessedwithwrestling\.com' is incorrect, the first [ should be preceded by a \ (so '\bweb\.archive\.org\[^ ]{0,50}obsessedwithwrestling\.com'. Can someone have a look and (if necessary) repair? Thanks. --Beetstra 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Think I've fixed it - if not, let me know - cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Syntax Error: This is a RegEx Error and produces a error in some regex routines (? Better correct it to (\?

in \zoofi the \ is needless

No, these are perl regex's. "(?" means that the term enclosed in the parentheses is to be matched case insensitively, whereas "(\?" would imply "preceded by a literal '?'". Similarly, "\zoofi" matches "oofi" at the end of a substring being checked, and "zoofi" instead matches the literal "zoofi". AmiDaniel 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
i used the list in a program with "Microsoft VBScript Regular Expressions" in VBScript.dll, and this caused a error by "(?". So i thought this is a general RegEx Error. And i thought that the spamwortcheck is principally case insensitive, and you wand finde the literal "?".
And i thought that you want finde "zoofil..", (it was in once the past like this in the list, without "\", if i remember correctly. "zoofil.." is a word for "se-x with a-nimals" and a typical spamword.)
thanks for responding The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 Dec 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, check the arguments and entries, some are baby correct. In "/zoofi..." is "/" definitely wrong.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.


Hello all, I don't know if it is possible but it would be a nice feature to have 2 'MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext', one that shows up if the url is on the local MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist on a given wiki and one that is shown if the url is on the global one here at meta. Because as far as I saw many wikis gave a link to meta in the local MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext and now people are redirected here even even if the link is not blacklisted here but locally. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

bugzilla:12034 opened, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
We've been getting increased en: wiki reports here that are on their local blacklist. I've updated en:'s text to give more information on checking locally for now, though this would be a much better solution. xaosflux Talk 01:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank You for Your efforts. Though I saw that also other wikis are directing people here, so that it would still be usefull. I would love to see some activity at that bug, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In general, I think the Mediawiki:Spamprotectiontext(s) should be more explanatory. Most wikis only provide a rough translation of the default message. Often users dont know what to do when they are prevented from saving a page - after all, they didn't add the link. And so, if they are only doing a minor edit they will probably just leave it and go on with something else. /NH 01:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello all, I am curiousif it is possible to have the spamblacklist block also edit summaries. Currently it does not block edit summaries (see [26] -> but [27]). This would be really a great feature since the spambots are concentrating on the summaries. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary? A url appears on an edit summary plainly, not as a link. It is less bothersome than spamming on the actual text. It may even be a convenient spam detector. Hillgentleman 06:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The bothersome thing about this is not the link itself, which is in fact not clickable, but the fact that spambots are messing up dozens of wikis, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe hard to believe but I am not really interested in the tools, only what I can do with them. One I would love is the ability to block open proxy spambots across all wikis! --Herby talk thyme 12:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
True. It may stop them for a while until they become more sophisticated. Hillgentleman 08:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Local blacklisting vs. global blacklisting?

Now that there is a local blacklisting capability, the question arises as to when to blacklist locally and when to blacklist here.

My personal opinion is that Meta should remain the primary venue for blacklisting. It's hard to predict who's going to spam more than one Wikipedia. While we now have a tool to find a given spam domain on the 57 largest Wikipedias, it remains problematic to find it on the 200 smaller Wikipedias or the other 450 to 500 Wikimedia projects (Wikiquote, Wikisource, etc.) There's value to all these other projects in listing stuff here.

I think the local blacklist option is good when one project wants a domain blacklisted and another project wants to use it. This happens occasionally when a given spammer makes himself intolerable on one project while the link is being used appropriately on other projects.

What do others think about this? --A. B. (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I agree with you. I don't have a big problem with local blacklisting on a particular project as a way to immediately interrupt a spammer in progress, but standard procedure should probably be to follow that action up with a request for meta blacklisting.--Isotope23 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As a crosswiki admin if I see spam pages created or bunches of links placed I immediately add them to local blacklists that I can access. It's quicker and easier than coming here (where I have not always been helpfully received) and there is at least one or two sites that I've blacklisted that have apparently valid links on en wp for example - just my 0.02 --Herby talk thyme 07:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
See Spam blacklist/About and use the block with the smallest possible range. Now local blacklists are available it's not worth the work of blocking here and potentially causing side-effects in hundreds of wikis until there is an established pattern of cross-wiki spamming. Perhaps automatic rejection until at least five wikis have been spammed. And not automatic acceptance after five, just eligibility. Jamesday 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting idea - how would you know a site was blocked by five wikis say? They do not tend to be well used (local blacklists) - I'm about the only one who adds to the 4 I have access to. The principle is fine - the practice? --Herby talk thyme 10:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Metric criteria are nice I think. I don't think however we need to say "blocked from five or more wikis". I think that it is just okay "five or more wikis were spammed". Currently, my personal criteria is very low though - spamming to two or more wikis regardless languages (both sets of i. enwiki and enwiktionary and ii. enwiki and dewiki are enough for me, I mean). --Aphaia 10:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I am with AB on this: we should use meta as both the main blocking list and also a forum where people go to see if someone has been causing a wider problem. Otherwise it becomes impossibly complicated to block from here and the argument "it this a nasty spammer who xyz" becomes "who abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". --AndrewCates 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

In the past I've not been well received on this page so have tended to avoid it and operate local blacklists where I have the rights. However I am increasingly interested in this as at least a clearing house for queries influenced in part by A.B. I have posted to a couple of Foundation mailing lists & I'm hoping to hear other views. I'm happy to review/discuss possible spam issues here whenever I'm around - cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If we don't blacklist by default here, then there should be a list or some mechanism (perhaps a bot) that tracks all the entries on the local lists so that other projects can check their links against what's been spammed elsewhere.
Ideally, the bot (or human volunteers) would also run periodic checks using a faster, expanded version of to see if locally blacklisted links are showing up on any of the 700+ Wikimedia projects. (I say "faster, expanded" since that tool checks up to the 57 largest Wikipedias and may take several minutes when checking 57).
Also, it's hard to rule out cross-wiki spam when our best tool just checks 57 of our 700 projects.
--A. B. (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
PS, Call me lazy, but maybe it's just easier to just blacklist by default here as opposed to setting up a new coordination system.--A. B. (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
When I was involved into the maintenance of this list, some years ago, I got such complaints by email periodically. It takes a time to reply them courtly but firmly. I think this kind of complaints are better to deal by the local people at first. Also I'm afraid this list affects too much websites. So I don't support "anything on meta and at first" tactics. And as for maintenance, this page is huge and editing is a pain. Single-website affecting spams are better to go to their local list, I think. --Aphaia 07:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Aphaia, right now, it seems like this list is running pretty smoothly without much admin effort. As for its maintenance, that doesn't seem to be much of a problem now. As for e-mails, I'm not an admin, but because I make so many requests here, I get them too. I just refer them back to this talk page, suggesting that they make their case here before a wider audience; I also make sure at least they get answer from me here if not from others. The admins that work on this list seem to have thick skins, are undeterred by complaints and are always willing to do the work. As for this list affecting many websites, you're right and that argument cuts both ways. This list also protects many web sites from known spammers.
In any event, what's the mechanism we're using for coordinating to ensure that spammers locally blacklisted in one place aren't spamming in another? Who's doing this work now? We must have a system in place to track this before we deprecate this list to use for proven cross-wiki spam only.
A useful parallel is the whole open proxy issue. For several years, different projects have battled open proxies separately resulting in a large duplication of effort. An open proxy blocked on fr.wikipedia (perhaps our best OP-fighters) would then be used by other spammers, vandals or POV-pushers to cause problems on nl.wikipedia or ja.wikibooks. Only now is there some convergence on a meta-level solution. Meanwhile, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction with spam. Meta has a critical role to play here, whether it's blacklisting globally or just tracking globally to catch cross-wiki spam. Either way, we must not abdicate our role and our responsibility (especially to the smaller wikis which have proven so vulnerable to spam). --A. B. (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another time to blacklist at meta: links to blatant copyright violations. For example, when the domains associated with this discussion all finally get identified, they should probably be blacklisted here even if we only find it on one project. That's because these sites are all blatant violations of different magazines' copyrights; we can't afford to have links to these sites if we can help it. (See the discussion of "contributory infringement" at en:Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works and en:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). --A. B. (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely - I do think we need to hammer out some approach to Meta blacklisting policy probably by extended/clarifying this. For anyone new arriving here (Meta sysop or another project user) this page is frankly unhelpful. My time is under considerable pressure at present but I do see this as a high priority and any help will be appreciated.
We would be able to clarify cross wiki spamming as a concept, the fact that some site should probably be blocked at a Meta level anyway such as above or sites that may compromise machines etc. We can also make blocking url shorteners a policy for example --Herby talk thyme 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides of all ... I eventually found this page: Spam blacklist policy discussion. Since this discussion is lengthy and it becomes clearer we need to have a global policy of inclusion for maintaining this page, are we better to move the discussion place? Or better to stay here? --Aphaia 22:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm for here, because if it's spam to one wiki odds are it's spam to most of them. Say, you have a marketing company that uses aggressive JavaScript, if each user on who has been there complains, odds are it'll still be aggressive to Yamakiri 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I agree with Yamakiri's point generally. If they spam one wiki they probably aren't useful to another one (& if they are whitelisting is an option).
However (& thanks Aphaia - I must have found that page in the past because I'd got it on my watchlist) we have Spam blacklist policy discussion & Spam blacklist/About and yet still no real clarity about policy or help for those who are not used to these pages be they admins or other users. My postings to both Foundation-l and the list for Meta met with nothing much so I guess it is up to us to hammer out guidelines policy etc. Until early October my time will be limited but I'll do what I can. I think it may well be worth a fresh start rather than trying to make changes to what we already have? --Herby talk thyme 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents. I'm sysop at 7 wikis. I would always use local blacklist (for instance, a spanish page isn't likely to be spammed on russian wiki), but if I see crosswiki spam as I JUST spot for [28], I'd come and global block. Local lists exist for a reason, and it's easier to keep track of. Global list should be used only when global blocking is needed. drini [es:] [commons:] 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the 57 Wikipedias searched by Eagle 101's cross-wiki search tool, this blacklist is also relied on by 650+ other Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wiktionaries, other Wikipedias, etc.). So for Spanish projects, there are these additional targets for Spanish-only spammers for which we don't have much visibility unless someone manually runs a linksearch domain-by-domain, project-by-project:
That or if we're lucky and Luxo's x-wiki user search tool finds the spammer using the same IP or user name on other projects. (That tool is sometimes off-line; at other times it misses contributions on some wikis).
I think another, less important factor to consider is how non-Wikimedia sites might use a domain. All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. A site selling an obviously bogus get-rich-quick scheme or magnetic underpants as a cancer cure has no value to any of our projects nor to any of the 1000s of other wikis our blacklist affects. You might as well do everyone a favor and globally blacklist such a site even if it appears on just one Wikimedia project. --A. B. (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Picking up Drini's point, local blacklisting is great. However it is dependent on admins locally being
  1. Aware of it
  2. Understanding regex adequately
  3. Being interested in the prevention of (inappropriate) external links
If any of those criteria are absent then so is local blacklisting effectively.
Equally on A. B.'s point, there are some sites that just aren't needed by the Foundation (or most other folk) such as the batch of adult sites I just added. In such a case it matters not whether they spammed one or many wikis they should be listed here not locally I think.
We do need a sharpening of policy (referred to above) which - when excess time is available! - I certainly aim to take a look at. --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Coibot's monitor list is quite efficient at spotting crosswiki spam, however it requires that someone actually look at the reports and notice it (as I did with, which was recently meta-blacklisted). It has a 'stalk page' feature which picks up domains added to watched pages using the spamlink template.. I imagine it could stalk the local mediawiki blacklist pages as well. I'm a bit reluctant to give it more tasks at this point as it and it's related linkwatchers are resource intensive, consuming about 2/3rds of the resources on a 4proc/4gig Sun Ultra80. --Versageek 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Local blacklisting is good for preventing abuse, and it's not a bad idea to reserve this list for those sites which are unambiguous and likely to be widely appreciated as a blacklist service by most or all local admins, such as the porn and meds spam domains and URL redirectors. JzG 19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

External link exclusion list

What would people think of renaming the spam blacklist to something a bit less inflammatory for people? This came up on a discussion from otrs from handling people that are upset that their links get put here etc. I'm not saying any of them shouldn't be here, but if it was called something else it may make people less upset. External link exclusion has the benefit of moving the emphasis towards our own editorial decisions, rather than labeling their site also. The message being that we don't think these links are right for an article/project page, not they are *spam*. Anyway, I'm not married to that name or anything. - cohesion 01:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

External link blacklist is clear. Hillgentleman 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless a proper redirect is set up (not just an article redirect), such a move is going to break thousands of third party mediawiki installations. Most people using the spam blacklist extension will have this in SpamBlacklist_body.php:
$this->files = array( "" );
Angela 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a name change is a good idea, provided it can be done properly as Angela has pointed out.
Hillgentleman's "External link blacklist" sounds good and "External link block list" sounds still less perjorative.
--A. B. (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I like block list better. People think everyone (google etc) use this list, and maybe they do, but the more we can make it seem like we're not publishing a spam blacklist for the whole internet the better, I think. (while still providing the service to external sites as Angela notes, which I think is good of course.) :) - cohesion 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly like to see this change, it would save quite a lot of confusion (& some offence I guess). "External link block list" would be my choice too --Herby talk thyme 08:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What should we do to move this forward? People (spammers) constantly email otrs complaining about libel, slander etc wrt this being called a spam blacklist. I'm not saying it should work any differently, but not having that terminology would be very helpful. And apparently google and others do use this a lot, according to them anyway. - cohesion 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
People can complain as much as they want :). You may want to change error message, but it's not enough reasonable to rename — VasilievVV 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am weighing in very late, I know, but I favor the name "External link exclusion list". Both "spam" and "blacklist" have strong negative connotations that unfortunately cause hurt and upset, and which make cause editors to not list things here that probably should be listed here.--Jimbo Wales 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Linksearch tool

In the event that others aren't familiar with it, there is a linksearch tool available on toolserver. I've added it to the text for special:linksearch on Meta, for convenience. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and I'll be working on making it faster over the next few weeks :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

spamlink template

en:User:Shadow1 and I are working on the linkwatchers. At the moment we are running them on 722 wikis (which is 'all' by the count of about one and a half week ago). User:COIBot is watching these 722 wikis, and reports when a link is on its monitorlist (and those links are generally there when it is spammed, see the explanation on en:User:COIBot). On the english wikipedia we use a spamlink template for reporting external links, which directly links to a number of search engines, and to a number of reporting systems, including COIBot. Would the template be of interest here? --Beetstra 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A link to the template would be useful? Getting reporting a little more consistent on here would make our lives a little easier too - it is not always clear what the extent of the problem is (nor sometimes the exact site name). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I created a version of that template here a few months ago: Template:Spamlink. It may need to be updated with the latest, greatest features - but it is here. --Versageek 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the template to a more meta-like form. When you use '* {{spamlink|}}' it displays the next line:

In order:

  1. First what is in the template,
  2. Linksearch for meta and the 5 big wikis (en, de, fr, en.wiktionary, fr.wiktionary, see Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size),
  3. 'LinkReport' is a report generated by an IRC bot by Betacommand, it is a save of a current linksearch on en.wikipedia.
  4. 'COIBot Linkreport' contains a summary of all use (by not-whitelisted users) on all 722 wikiprojects on Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size, since the moment of blacklisting/monitoring (see en:User:COIBot for more info).
  5. Eagle's spam report search searches for reports on en.wikipedia spam archives, and here as well I think.
  6. interwiki link search: 20 and 57 search in resp. the 20 and 57 biggest wikis.
  7. LinkWatcher search searches in en:User:Shadow1's database (only en at the moment, probably at some time also for more/all wikipedia).
  8. Wikipedia search searches for the existence of the page with the url name on en, de and fr.
  9. google search searches for info on the site on google.
  10. Veinors pages contain also link-addition information
  11. domaintools gives info on the domain
  12. gives info on the domain
  13. Yahoo backlinks, search engine results.

I guess it contains pretty much all the tools needed to investigate the link, latest additions and current use. Hope this helps. --Beetstra 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good - we'll see how it goes as it gets used. Given the nature of it I'll probably semi protect it I think - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is protected (or did you just do that?). --Beetstra 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, to keep yourself more or less up to date, you can watchlist User:COIBot/LinkReports, that gets updated when COIBot saves a report (about every 5 minutes). It may get you one step ahead of a spammer (though take care interpreting the report, COIBot sometimes picks up links by mistake). --Beetstra 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Protection - yes (when I am around I am not generally slow!). As to watching (& for me) the honest answer at present is "no time" - I would consider myself pretty active on three wikis at least so I tend not be short of work. When I get time I will check it out and see what I can do - thanks for your work & regards --Herby talk thyme 13:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Enwiki's blacklist ?

I just remind our sysops, that urls shouldn't be added here to stop "enwiki's spam". They have their own local blacklist, and listing urls here because they got spammed there is causing problems at other wikis. Please leave this ONLY for crosswiki spam, and direct enwiki petitions to en:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (this because [29] ) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drini (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/ --Jorunn 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
In fairness if you look at this page any time you will see that the regulars here always point to local black & white lists unless there is cross wiki evidence, thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't hurt to remind, herby. I see a lot of sites still blacklisted globally due to enwiki incidents (specially older ones). drini [es:] [commons:] 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure Drini - some of them could do with removing (if we knew which ones!) but those around at present won't list anything that is solely en wp as far as I know, --Herby talk thyme 08:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
For those with OTRS access: We have another complaint about, related to the reason it was blacklisted initially. --Versageek 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I was just coming to ask the same question. I thought we blacklisted both to prevent the war? I just blacklisted on enwiki anyway, but this was widespread cross-wiki. JzG 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to express an opinion on the merits of either deathcamps site other than to note that if a copyright concern about either or both site justifies blacklisting on en.wikipedia, then it justifies blacklisting on every Wikimedia project. Copyright issues are a function of:
  1. the suspect site's content provenance
  2. copyright laws where our servers are located (in this case, Florida, USA)
These apply regardless of either their site's or our sites' languages.
We also list some other domains universally even if they show up on just one Wikimedia project: URL shorteners such as --A. B. (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

French Wikipedia

I think french WP has problems and I hope is not a global problem of WP. This page (sorry, I was obliged to copy the original page in my website so that you can see) : "absurdité wikipedienne : la vérité décrétée par vote" ) is considered by french WP as a spam. I think this page is absolutely necessary for the discussion of what should be a real encyclopaedia. It contains no aggression against WP. And why it shoud be a spam ? Because the page quotes Diderot, the inventor of the word "encyclopedia", to show that french WP is wrong when it refused to include alive knowledge, emerging knowledge ! Even more pernicious : a french scientific success 20 years ago (More than 100 articles in the press ) is refused because it was not published as french official academics do ! But official academics refuse to speak about french private inventions. And the pages of french WP are closely controlled by them !

I am an AI expert (Artificial Intelligence). Please read the french pages : Intelligence Artificielle, systèmes experts, Maïeutica and the discussion pages (I'm "JeanPHi85"). You will see the tremendous efforts that I made to obtain acceptation of 4 successive proposals.

I hope you are not an academic ! Please, answer me by email (my email : and not in discussion pages. One of these academics, Sylenius, clears my texts that does not like. In the page of "Petit Djul", a WP fireman (a high school student !), he even confessed to have hacked my website to create a link without my permission! Then he erased this confession. 09:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As this site is not listed on Meta can you please take this to the appropriate page on fr wp (fr:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist I guess). Meta is not in a position to deal with local issues, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


How do I test if this is working on my wiki? -- 02:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Add an item thatis on this blacklist to a page on your wiki. If it won't save, its working. If it lets you add the link, its not working. —— Eagle101 Need help? 08:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Dear all. Eagle 101 and I have been working on bots in the spam IRC channels (see #wikipedia-spam-t for talking, people there will be able to steer you to the other channels; #wikipedia-en-spam and #cvn-sw-spam). The bots are now capable of real-time cross wiki spam detection (and soon that will also be reported). It would be nice if some of you would join us there, and help us cleaning etc. as this appears to go faster than we at first expect (and I do get the feeling the en wiki is not a good starting point for finding them! --Beetstra 21:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Something interesting for ya all to look at. I'm going to work on making each link go to subpages, and have them updated in a way that we can comment on the subpages as well, and bring the ones that need blacklisting to the meta blacklist. I can't have the bot automatically post here, we would flood this list out, so we will have to look at them all and then link to them. Hopefully we can get all the reports in one place, the coibot reports etc. Folks more or less simple crosswiki spam is easily detectable. :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Bah, you probably want to see the subpage at User:SpamReportBot/test ;) —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition to the COIBot reports

The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. " (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

  1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
  2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
  3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
  4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user do add a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

For those with access to IRC, there this data is available in real time. --Beetstra 10:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Log weirdness

I guess it may be a caching issue but for me the log appears to end at July 2007? Editing gave me March 2008 but it ain't there now for me? --Herby talk thyme 12:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rv'd myself for now but something is going wrong??? --Herby talk thyme 14:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks to me like you put the log entry in the right section, I'm re-adding it for ya. Did you purge? ~Kylu (u|t) 16:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed in a sense but just purged the cache & it cuts off at July 2007 for me (I even tried making it #March 2008 and got de nada). Is it just me - it has been "one of those" days :) --Herby talk thyme 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see past July 2007 either :\ Mønobi 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC) - issues with the rendering cluster again (which would keep &action=purge from working) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Did the full ff purge & still have the same as Monobi today. I am recording the entries that I cannot log at present but I guess if this is not resolved soon alternatives of some sort may be needed. If anyone else finds (or does not find) the same it would be good to hear. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Leave me the log entries you want added on my talk, and I'll add them for you if you'd like. I can get around this problem. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 14:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-03" page.