Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-05

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

URL redirection service like TinyURL. 13:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Added thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross wiki spam today from suspect poilish mailserver. MoiraMoira 13:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Links mostly removed (other than pl where it may be legitimate). xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogbullseye is the IP involved. I'm inclined to see if this comes back - if it does it is listable in my view, thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please blacklist

which is being spammed by


--Erwin(85) 09:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Link shortener, agreed   Added & thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

URL shorteners

Blacklisted following shorteners listed on


VasilievVV 18:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

All have been added   Added – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Universe Daily

See the latest incarnation and AN thread.

  Done, reporting here for logging as I don't have time to log it right now. JzG 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC) - url shortener

--Versageek 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it -   Added --Herby talk thyme 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please blacklist

which is being spammed by

--Erwin(85) 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  AddedVasilievVV 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Both spammers are cross-wiki. See 10:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - links cleared but they look persistent over time.   Added thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sites by Mikhailov Kusserow



They all reside on different IPs:

I am closing the 8 SpamReportBot reports (to keep that list clear). Discussion here please. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All in all, the links seem legit, though in some cases whole linkfarms were added in one edit. Mikhailov Kusserow has a userpage on many of the wikis I checked (SUL?). I have asked id:Pengguna:Mikhailov_Kusserow (which appears to be one of the bigger accounts) to help us out here. Awaiting discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the links look relevant, but there appears to be a distinct bias here, which is not cause for blacklisting unless it continues egregiously, but is cause for concern. Very likely the link placement may be unwanted upon closer inspection, but that is not for us to decide here. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Update - after a message on my talk page I have left another message on the user's en wp talk page (at their request) again pointing to this link. Maybe give it a couple of days but after that I think we must consider listing these in the absence of any explanation --Herby talk thyme 11:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My Mistake

No, I don't think so. We are watching the external link additions on 722 wikipedia, and saw that you added a handful of new links to a handful of wikipedias. As the links have not been used by anyone else, that triggers our system. For IPs that generally means that it is spam, but here this was done by an established editor. That normally means that we can ignore, but Herythyme found that one of the sites was under development, and showed concerns. I still think all is fine, but your input to clarify this would be great. See m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Multiple_sites_by_Mikhailov_Kusserow, I am sure that this is a mistake, and a short explanation of these links will clear the matter. Thanks already! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - the best thing would be if you would go to the link that Dirk has provided above & comment there. You have been placing links to eight sites across a number of wikis which does look like excessive link placement to the community there. An explanation of why you see that as relevant will allow us to review the matter. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I make a mistake in all wkipedia. I just want to give contributions, that's all. I don't have a plan to make a spam. Thank You for all your Reminders. Mikhailov Kusserow 04:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting your comment in or Mikhailov Kusserow 04:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the posting Mikhailov however we do need to know why you think these sites relevant & why you have been placing links. As I said on your talk page on en wp a few days ago you need to discuss the matter on this page not a personal talk page. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 06:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Have we made a determination on this yet? I'm of the view that adding many links at once is generally not ok, and I don't see a satisfactory response here. Note that this user is on 87 wikis. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest closing this as   Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Six links from cross wiki for discussion

  • Its an Islamic website and used in this article as a reference, can you kindly explain me that why have you taken that link out of the article?--Asikhi 06:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Some links from are valid and have been placed for non-spam reasons. Please look at these on a case-by-case basis and don't blanket-delete.- 21:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • is an Islamic web portal and it covers wide range of topics on Islam. I am sorry but I couldn't understand that why have you deleted [ this link] along with WHOLE SENTENCE?--Asikhi 06:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It is an Official Website of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam in Urdu, Why this was taken out?--Asikhi 06:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This link belong to official website of “CENTRE FOR LEGAL AID ASSISTANCE & SETTLEMENT” (CLAAS), why it was removed?--Asikhi 06:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several users involved, generally the users who are only active on one wiki seem to revert vandalism (as the bots involved). User on more than one wiki (not implying that they did something wrong):

But the link gets sometimes reverted while the Asikhi was not active with that link on that wiki. Maybe 'older' spammers (pre-database?).

Please provide some discussion, I am closing the reports and will point the discussions here. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as is concerned the link being placed "looks" relevant as it is quite long. However (for me) it redirects to the home page which appears to have no relevance to Wikipedia and contains the wor "affiliated" which makes me wonder. I will look far more closely at the others. This batch concerns me --Herby talk thyme 09:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have real doubts about the validity of these sites to Wikipedia as a whole --Herby talk thyme 10:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Herby, these are not good links, and I would blacklist, but note that there are many links on several wikis that must be removed. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be listed but I am concerned about the number of existing links that need dealing with - any ideas? --Herby talk thyme 08:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Only one, and that's to do some spadework. I will start on this. JzG 20:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's a plan: purge them from the major projects, use admin contacts on those projects to blacklist and prevent them going back in, and once we've got the count down on the main projects we can blacklist them here and clear the project blacklists. Either that or hit them once and blacklist, and leave any edit warriors who revert to pick up the pieces. But I had some idiot who told me that he'd had to use rollback to revert a link back in that I'd removed because a manual revert or an undo was caught in the blacklist so would not save. I have not the words... JzG 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Scratch that. People have plainly been busy, we're down to a handful of links to each on the top 20 wikis, mostly on talk and user talk pages. Safe to blacklist? JzG 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    That was partly me. It looks (above) like someone's not happy with me culling these links. The one mentioned above is used in <ref> :O
    I have serious doubts about it's validity as a reference or an external link; I think listing is OK at this point. Disagreement? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed these sites before the request came here. I do not see them as encyclopaedic and therefore I believe the blacklisting is correct. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not convinced, at least you should review following sites:
Thanks & regards, --Asikhi 07:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - as I recall them from the first time I looked at them. They may be interesting to some degree however they are not encyclopaedic. Equally they were excessively linked. I see no reason to remove these but others may see it differently. --Herby talk thyme 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  Added – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Can I use now above mentioned websites as reference?--Asikhi 11:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, they have been blacklisted. They are unsuitable for use as references, and are not encyclopedic. Please see the discussion above for further reasoning. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this it seems to largely added by IPs

Views welcome (not suggesting blacklisting is necessary but....) --Herby talk thyme 09:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Might as well. The IPs are spamming, and the site is not suitable for linking IMO. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Linking continued quite some yesterday on enwiki, but has been cross-wiki in the past. Links cleared, and   Added – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

thatsqingdao, etc

Relentless spamming of this site,,, qingdaochinaguide (the last two of which redirect to by multiple IPS:

  Declined, please use local blacklistVasilievVV 18:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This domain was subsequently blacklisted locally on en.wikipedia. In investigating a removal request, I found that these domains were spammed cross-wiki:
There were also some more related domains:

--A. B. (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Generally not one to blacklist related domains, but in this case I'm fine with listing all 7. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Given no further comments,   Added – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I have posted a response to the whitelist discussion [1] several days ago and recently noticed that you added ( to the global blacklist. It does seem that ( actually does provide current encyclopedic information on attractions, festivals, & local events. Can this be left on the local black list instead? Or better yet, completely removed? ~thanks for your consideration. LizGodfry 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (moved from User talk:Mike.lifeguard)

The site as well as the related sites have been relentless spammed across numerous wikis. Note that LizGodfry on en Wikipedia is a single-purpose account. Ohnoitsjamie 17:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)




--A. B. (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  Done -A. B. (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC) and related spam

Spam domains

Google Adsense: 2615385364803304, 8224821733389100

Related domains


--A. B. (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  Done --13:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

--A. B. (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Spammed on en and es Wikipedias




--A. B. (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  Done --A. B. (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Spammed on ten differend wikipedia's, continuing affair.


Account (is the company itself)

Kind regards, MoiraMoira 06:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  Done, thanks — VasilievV 2 06:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

URL shortener. 11:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  Added & thanks. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Was added alongside It's a blog :( – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Links on all Wikipedias cleared. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Italian portal spam

Sites spammed

Related domains


See w:WT:WPSPAM#Italian portal spam for more info. All the IPs are cross-wiki spammers. 12:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bump. 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, got lost wading through all the reports. Looks good for listing to me. There are some links that will need removal; doing now... – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, left itwiki alone; they may well want whitelisting. hewiki wasn't happy about it - I suspect they'll be re-added shortly. Nevertheless, these are clearly cross-wiki spammers. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  Added  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC) attempting to circumvent via redirect


Recent run in with this spammer can be found en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#web-app_dot_net. Couldent find the origional listing info, however the redirect to is thanks--Hu12 05:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Found last report User:COIBot/XWiki/ 05:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Also is adding this site along with the redirect[2]. --Hu12 05:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


  • previously blacklisted
  • Google Adsense: 8510977985742886


Not to be confused with
(unrelated owners)
--A. B. (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate to blacklist open source software web sites, but this spammer has proven himself singularly disruptive and disputatious. If an established editor wants to use one of these links, I'll be happy to consider whitelisting.
  Added --A. B. (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Humor: The bots that are catching this XWiki spammer are all written in perl. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More abusive socks

--Hu12 00:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See also WikiProject_Spam case

Cross wiki spamming

Wendy Diaz and Associates Spam law firm spam. Thanks, --Hu12 17:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Added, thanks — VasilievV 2 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam domains

  • Note: is a URL shortener domain similar to referral ID: 5807

URL shortener domain found while researching this incident

Related domains



--A. B. (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Ugh. Shall we go for a regex that blocks all and The potential for collateral damage is strictly limited. 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
My 2 cents: I think for now we can hold off simply because the abuser did not spam that many commerce* links -- >90% of his edits were flogging and other iran-titled domains. If we get more of the commerce* stuff, we can revisit this issue. --A. B. (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that I consolidated some of these regexes for the sake of brevity.  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pages replaced with that site by

on af, ast,

The spamlink had been temporaily added to the bl to stop him, (he obviously just started at "a")


Probably it should stay on the bl, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(note, I have not yet added it to the log, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Given that it seemed to have happened not only on (af) and (ast), (en),(es), and the fact that he obviously (seen on via the big brother channel) just started at a to replace all articles with that link, I think the link should stay blacklisted, I will add it to the log now. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks birdy!  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Placed on articles about Coca by:

.Koen 15:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Caught by the linkwatchers as well, covered in User:COIBot/XWiki/ Suggest discussing there, more info there. Good catch, .Koen! --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 16:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider blacklisting It's the sister site of previously blocked block discussion here, owned by Advameg Advameg discussion here. A search on yielded its insertion into over 20 articles on the English-language Wikipedia, including Company American Pop Corn Company, Frederick W. Smith, Dwight Schar, and List of acquisitions by Symantec. I have not found a specific spam user, but I think instead the site is typically added as a reference by editors who are adding cites to articles and come across as a Google result for obscure topics. --Zippy 05:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a solely en wp issue then the blacklisting should be local (here) thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion - I was not aware of the en.wikipedia list. I did a check, and links to also appear on de.wikipedia, nl.wikipedia, fr.wikipedia, it.wikipedia, ja.wikipedia, and zh.wikipedia, albeit to a reduced degree compared to en.wikipedia. (links go to search results) --Zippy 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

175 links on top 10 wikis (here). Certainly needs looking at - out of time myself now --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm unsure what to do here. There is heavy linkage - some clearly inappropriate, but other use seems legit. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I have serious doubts about the suitability of this domain as a reference or external link. I would be inclined to remove it wherever possible, but I'm still unsure whether blacklisting (esp. globally) is warranted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This type is really difficult to deal with. There is certainly some valid use of the link, there is some excessive use of the link.
If we list it some valid editors will be affected, if we don't it is likely the linkage will grow & grow. Other views very welcome, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see RfB as being a valid use as in "a user in good faith adds it as a citation for an article," but I don't think is ever valid as a reference, due to verifiability and reliability concerns. I'm having a hard time coming up with a case where I'd not remove it as a link. --Zippy 11:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving that way I think. I can see why it might be an idea to use it but equally I would have thought any really important stuff should be found elsewhere? Those interested may want to look here as well. --Herby talk thyme 11:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
All over, there are discussions on talk pages about the suitability of this domain as a reference. I don't think it is ok for that purpose. But I'm not sure that necessitates blacklisting globally. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
After looking at some more uses, and looking into the background discussion some more, I'm thinking this may be similar to the case of - there might be some good content in there, but it is not a reliable source on the whole. I'd want some more input before proceeding. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeated cross-wiki spamming in articles about Lago de Atitlán.

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] -- 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.   Added  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This was inserted only a few places as far as I know, but it was pages like chr:Wikipedia:How to edit a page and simple:Wikipedia:How to copy-edit. The website is of no value to any Wikimedia wiki.

--Jorunn 08:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Added \bsearchx\.1gb\.in\b  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)