Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-10

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

Another URL redirector/shortener. - MrOllie 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector/shortener. 15:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added Dferg 13:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect URL from blocked site redirects to

New account

--Hu12 14:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a badly translated mirror of wikipedia articles. see de:w:Wikipedia:Weiternutzung/Mä I will block that in a few seconds.   Added -- seth 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

URL redirector/shortener. 10:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC) curcumventing blacklist

Seems one of the IP's in the above decline discussion placed a link[1], which after checking appears to be this user ( profile identifies this user page as, which every page he creates linke to some tutorial. Seems he has created his own little spam factory on

here are the curcumventing links;


Heres a regexed list for ease of listing;

  • \bdzone\.com/links/the_best_tutorial_on_ruby_on_rails\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/scriptaculous_tutorial_2\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/jdbc_tutorial_4\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/java_tutorial_6\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/understanding_multithreaded_programming_with_java\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/a_jdbc_tutorial_for_beginners\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/exception_handling_in_java_2\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/understanding_regular_expressions_in_java\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/accessing_database_using_python\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/sending_email_in_different_format_using_java_emai\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/understanding_serialization_in_java\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/learn_java_by_examples\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/learning_unix_was_never_so_easy_before\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/cgi_using_python_programming\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/learn_java_collection_framework\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/108520\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/a_complete_tutorial_on_ruby_on_rails\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/simple_tutorial_on_ajax_technology\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/a_complete_tutorial_on_mysql\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/a_complete_tutorial_on_mysql\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/a_basic_tutorial_on_gsm_technology\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/a_nice_tutorial_on_rss\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/an_online_image_processing_its_simple_and_useful\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/urlspedia_submit_your_web_pages_in_web_directory\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/if_you_are_moving_towards_management_get_pmp_cert\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/create_cool_effects_using_css20\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/small_tutorial_on_web_services\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/learn_xmlrpc_in_simple_steps\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/image_effect_creation_using_css_2\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/mysql_useful_functions_and_clauses\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/create_amzaing_visual_effects_using_web_20_scripts\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/a_simplified_php_tutorial_for_beginners\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/scriptaculous_drag_n_drop_tutorial\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/scriptaculous_tutorial\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/file_uploading_using_rails\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/ajax_on_rails_tutorials\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/unix_makefile_tutorial\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/learn_ajax_step_by_step\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/prototype_framework_explained_with_examples\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/prototype_and_ajax_tutorial\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/json_support_available_with_prototype_framework\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/a_complete_guide_for_ruby_progammers\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/implement_web_services_using_ruby_in_simple_way\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/ruby_socket_programming_tutorial\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/ruby_on_rails_21x_scaffolding\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/ruby_on_rails_21x_unit_testing\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/a_complete_guide_for_javascript_progammers\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/ruby_on_rails_21_4\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/complete_tutorial_on_python_programming_language\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/a_short_tutorial_on_basic_uml\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/learn_cgi_programming_using_python\.html\b
  • \bdzone\.com/links/java_tutorial_in_simple_and_easy_steps\.html\b

thanks --Hu12 20:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we really have to do each page individually? Is there any good stuff on that domain?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Now that you mention it. From their About page(;
About DZone
  • DZone is a free link-sharing community for developers
  • anyone can submit new links to the incoming queue
  • members vote on upcoming links to determine what gets promoted
  • everyone can browse, search and comment on links
I don't see anything persuasive, or any situation why any wikiproject should be linking to these. Only seems to be a way to circumvent blacklisting.--Hu12 15:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See german sbl request. This is a wikipedia mirror which has been linked at several wikis. Some are listed by COIBot, but not all, e.g. w:hu is not listed yet.   Added -- seth 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Links: en:wiki: [2]; m: [3], [4]; rw:wiki: [5]
  • More info: this is an ip registered to the Philippines based company Primeworld Digital Systems, Inc. From this ip the following sites were spammed too: to commons ([6]) and m ([7]), to en wiki ([8], [9], [10]), to v:en ([11]), to v:en ([12])

Wutsje 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I also locked the accounts, as they continued spamming.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Url shorteners

Url shorteners. Track13 0_o 20:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added --Dferg 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Links to this blog are being inserted by David "Shankbone", the owner of the blog, to promote it. For every image David uploads to Wikimedia Commons, he adds a link to his blog; in other words, he is a shameless self-promoter who wants to increase the number of visitors to his blog and its PageRank. This should be added to the spam blacklist.

See this: ...and this: (1166 pages) (Note that he is also part of an effort to promote pornographer Michael Lucas, who he knows in real life, and his "works".)

J. from Nevada 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • This IP was being used, self-admittedly, for ban evasion by English Wikipedian W:User:Ionas68224, who is also banned on Simple English as User:Jonas D. Rand. He used this IP to follow me around on Wikipedia before his IP was blocked. Of course, many Wikimedia Commons photographers from all over the world engage in the uncontroversial practice of having links to their personal websites on their photography. --David Shankbone 01:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It should be pointed out, in fairness, that the editor - if this is him - isn't blocked on this project. Let's at least treat this case on its merits. I'll recuse myself from acting on this, though, as I'm familiar with both editors here - Alison 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright holders have a right to attribution; I fail to see how these links are spam as opposed to attribution (though certainly that is possible, I did see such cases as a Commons admin). Perhaps you can clarify why you think that is the case.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the same question as Mike. I know of a number of other users, administrators even, who use their name or username in their uploads to commons. Why is this case so different? Tiptoety talk 02:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Right to attribution is different than spam. What would you say if I put a link to my personal page in every edit summary? Clear spam. This is clear spam. 13:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Fits the very definition of spam and exactly what we don't want WMF to be used for. I support a blacklisting. 13:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It is customary to allow for a link to the person who provides us with images. It is not spam.. and I dare to put my sign to it .. GerardM 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Customary according to whom? There is a thing called no ownership. Once you release something, it is no longer yours. You contribute to a pool. There is no owner of any content at Wikimedia, which is why we have such strict structures on these images. To put the link in there is to contradict multiple policies and express a point of view that undermines the integrity of this whole system. What you are basically doing is turning Wikimedia into MyWikiBiz. I find that completely inappropriate. 15:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Customary according to how things have and are being done at Wikimedia Commons, and you're wrong : releasing an image under a free license does not imply that someone is giving up ownership - they simply allow others to make use of their property under certain conditions (like attribution). Asking for global blacklisting of due to this is what I would call "disturbing the project". Close this please, and move on. Regards, Finn Rindahl 16:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't attempt to piss on me and call it rain. Your rationale is to say that vandalism is customary and therefore acceptable. This is 1. ownership and 2. the very definition of spam. Wikimedia does not operate in this manner. It never has, nor has consensus ever suggested it should. Your calling for this legitimate request based on solid grounds to be closed is nothing short of a point violation. "simply allow others to make use of their property" anything on Wikimedia is no longer anyone's property. Do you not understand what the little message above the edit summary and at the upload screen at commons means? I will assume that you aren't completely ignorant and that you are just making outlandishly false statements for some other reason. 17:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  Declined. I'm ending this discussion, if the website is used to spam it should be blacklisted locally, I have more than one reason for it.
  • If a wiki wants to make a article about him and link the blog it will be impossible.
  • The link is needed for attribution on Commons

Best regards, Huib talk 18:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this decline and close. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Everyone knows that the author of the content can simply submit without having to link his other uses for it. It is written on the upload form and in the template. So Huib, your comment is wrong. Ottava Rima 20:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison: Yes, it's me ("J. from Nevada" lol).

There is a difference between adding images under your real name, and linking all mentions of your name in the "Author" box to your blog. The only purpose this serves is to increase Google rankings or visitors to your blog. <personal attacks removed>

Jonas from Nevada 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate Huib's comments, if the link is being used as spam, it can be blacklisted locally. There is no evidence whatsoever that this link is being included on a large scale across multiple projects. Until you provide such evidence, this request will remain   Declined. J.delanoygabsadds 04:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, the rest of the behavior you claim (without substantiation) that David has done with regard to you has utterly no bearing whatsoever on this request. J.delanoygabsadds 04:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Origionaly reported on my talk
See also - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/
See also - commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass_image_and_linkspam_accounts

Its a scraper site of ripped content from, and claiming copyright to the sites generated images and data. Promotional content from a file spamming account. we've already blacklisted on the en.wikipedia, however this has spread considerably. Aproimatly 1200 links have been added in the last 2 days on commons. thanks--Hu12 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  •   Note: We have blocked all these users locally on commons, and deleted all their contributions. That said, I also recommend a global block. Tiptoety talk 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  Added. Thanks. --Erwin 08:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

See also -
See also -
Cross wiki spam

Thanks--Hu12 17:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added Dferg 21:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Site "similar" to Commons. These 2 users are making edits only adding this external link and they put in summary "Fixed a link" (sometimes translated) witch is completely lie, never found this users fixing a link. I removed some links: all in pt.wikipedia, some in it.wikipedia and de.wikipedia until I found it was more than one user and more pages to clean. I don't know if there are more users. Just found these two. Mosca 18:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Was spamed also on eswiki, enwiki and dewiki. In all of those wikis there is no links left, all reverted. Crosswiki domain pushing? - see crosswiki coi report for evidence. --Dferg 12:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  Added & removed many links.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cross wiki spam. Has been going on since 2006 (or longer).

--Jorunn 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added. Thanks! --Erwin 11:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See also -
Cross wiki spam
some seo spammer, thanks, --Hu12 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Adsense pub-0804849852878399

Cross wiki spam

--Hu12 17:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added - thank you. Dferg 19:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam made IP addresses and added to the articles about en:Chamorro language. -- Mercy (|) 20:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added. --Huib talk 21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC) --Dalibor Bosits 18:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We're waiting a few minutes for a bot report so we can better see the extent of the spamming, whether other users/IPs are involved, or whether other domains are implicated.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems like they have created an account and started spamming again: -- Mercy (|) 18:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Url shortener. Track13 0_o 16:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added. --Erwin 09:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam on - bots didn't catch it - are we watching that wiki?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam under external links on south slavic Wikies. Private Site of sr:Корисник:Тснена --Seha 12:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is such a problem, why hasn't srwiki blacklisted it already?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note linking goes back to 2007.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
This user is writing on and putting links on the other. All articles are copies of the articles on the bionet-skola. I haven´t found any copyleft remarks on the bionet page. I don´t know why they tolerate it, but at my talk on, I was attacked while I remove the links. She sayed: we should remove all articles wich are copy of her page if we remove the links, but she has put the same on the sr wiki years ago, and that´s where they have bean translated/imported from. In short: If link is in the article she tolerate it, but if not, then text should be removed. --Seha 23:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The user used to be a bureaucrat on srwiki, but then quit. She's a biology professor in a Serbian town and her site is renowned in the biology sphere of Serbia as a pioneering and one of the most comprehensive biology-related sites. It is regularly used in education, not only by her, but by other biology professors. She has contributed to many Serbian Wikipedia articles and I don't think this site is spam. --FiliP ██ 08:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dungodung.   Declined on that basis.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


Cross wiki spamming

. Commercial training spam. Thanks, --Hu12 19:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

More Matrikon spam

Another Spam redirect to Matrikon inc. en.wikipedia archive--Hu12 19:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added. --Erwin 15:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Crosswiki spamming

Crosswiki spam. IP globally blocked. Adding in few moments. --Dferg 18:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated with a few more. --Dferg 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  Added --Dferg 18:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

see User:COIBot/XWiki/ Regards, Finn Rindahl 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  Done - I've changed the regex of the already added travestinet per #Crosswiki spamming from \btravestinet\.net\b\btravestinet\.(net|com)\b. Hope that it works. Thanks Finn! --Dferg 13:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam by redirect to the refferal page. Track13 0_o 15:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added. Thanks! --Erwin 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cross wiki spamming

persistant spamming on, has now begun to spread accross multiple projects. thanks--Hu12 06:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  Added. --Erwin 10:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ;)--Hu12 15:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you for bringing it to our attention. --Erwin 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Climate change spam

The NY Times article linked at has been spammed to (almost) all articles about Ban Ki-moon by

Note that this user also spammed:

  Added the specific NY times article to the blacklist. --Erwin 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I shouldn't have been able to add <url removed> if it's indeed blacklisted. --Erwin 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please check this and keep an eye out for spam to w:en:Ban Ki-moon? --Erwin 19:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the blacklist didn't kick in when adding this section and I could add the URL a second time, because it was already there. In any case, the URL is indeed   Added. --Erwin 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

Sulekha is the Indian equivalent of Blogspot (among other things), and links to it, where inappropriate, could easily be handled by XLinkBot or equivalent. A domain-wide blacklist is gratuitous and unnecessary. Like the handful of blogs (maintained by academics, etc.) that are notable enough and find occasional use as references, the same is the case with Sulekha — for example, Rajiv Malhotra's articles posted on Sulekha are cited in various scholarly works. Blacklisting it globally on Mediawiki is not required; right now I'm having trouble even saving a page to my own sandbox in userspace! Shreevatsa 16:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This was blacklisted due to massive spamming. I'd suggest whitelisting where specific legitimate uses can be found. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was reported along with various clearly-spammy domains, in a section called "Adsense spammer", all of which were blocked en masse, but if you look at the actual spamsearch results for, you will see that most (all?) of the links are not adsense spam, but at most unreliable sources. This is consistent with what I said above. It's not "spam". Shreevatsa 17:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking more closely, I cannot find any link that could be classified as spam; for several of them (across wikis) it is even possible to justify the external link. In any case, these links, where questionable, can be removed through the usual processes (discussion on the article's talk page and so on). The report doesn't come with the dates when the links were inserted into the articles, but is quite likely that many of the links were in fact added to articles through the normal process (i.e., by article-writers and not by spammers) before this domain snuck into the blacklist along with spam websites. Shreevatsa 17:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Any updates on this? To reiterate, this domain has been erroneously classified as spam, and the history of its use shows mostly legitimate uses, and hardly any spam. Shreevatsa 13:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at User:COIBot/LinkReports/, I don't see the "mostly legitimate uses, and hardly any spam" - thus   Declined again.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for (finally) replying. I don't see why you say "declined again", since this is the first time you've given a reason, and that reason is just "I don't see what you see". I'm disappointed by the heavy-handed way in which this process seems to work, and the lack of assuming good faith. (It is understandable, given what you seem to mostly encounter, but not a good thing.) If you disagree that you don't see mostly legitimate uses, why not ask for a clarification instead of laying down your opinion? Is it even possible that anything you read here will convince you against your pre-formed judgement? By what twisted logic does the fact that the link has been used in many articles itself make it spam? I have no vested interest in this and am not associated with the website in any way; I was just editing an article in my sandbox (legitimate use) and was surprised when I couldn't save the page and an error message came up.
Anyway, I was hoping not to have to do all this work, but since you disagree, let's look at all entries in User:COIBot/LinkReports/ and you can tell me why you think the domain should be on the spam blacklist. I've marked as legitimate use those that were part of the normal editing process and cannot be considered disruptive or spam — it is possible to disagree whether a better link/source can be found, but they're not unambiguously spam. In many articles you will see that they were added by established users and were not considered unwanted: on the contrary, they were deemed useful to the article for several years, until they were removed simply because of the domain getting added to the blacklist. Most of the cases where they were unwanted are simply those of overenthusiastic fans trying to add photos (and failing), not any sort of promotion that would require blacklisting. Here are the 78 entries of COIBot's LinkReport:
  1. w:en:User:WWGB (whitelisted) to w:en:Mantrakodi added link to information at , article later deleted: legitimate use
  2. w:en:User: to w:en:Preeta Rao added link to photos on Sulekha, along with Wordpress, Blogspot and India Forums: non-specific spam
  3. w:hi:User: to hi:हिंदू धर्म के ग्रंथ added link to , where it is useful and remained for two years until you removed it today: legitimate use
  4. w:hi:सदस्य:पूर्णिमा_वर्मन, a user with ~29000 edits on the wiki, to hi:योगसूत्र added link as ref: legitimate use
  5. Bot, copyvio article, now deleted.
  6. w:en:User:Anoopkn to w:en:Chanthupottu (a movie) added link to reviews at MusicIndiaOnline, IMDb, Sulekha and Moutshut: legitimate use
  7. w:en:User:Devadaru to w:en:Jeffrey J. Kripal added link to article at : legitimate use
  8. w:en:User:Ajcfreak to w:en:User:SBOA School & Junior College added ref to legitimate use
  9. w:en:User: to w:en:Red-vented Bulbul added link to : legitimate use
  10. Adding actor's photo from Sulekha to w:de:Narcotics Anonymous: Vandalism
  11. w:en:User:Auawise to w:en:Green marketing added ref to article at : although it has "marketing" in its name, legitimate use :-)
  12. Same as above: legitimate use
  13. w:en:User:Bluesswing to w:en:Vikas Khanna added link to : link now dead, but quite likely legitimate use
  14. Bot reverting removal of link: legitimate use
  15. Bot reverting removal of link: legitimate use
  16. Whitelisted user reverting vandalism: legitimate use
  17. w:en:User:Ekabhishek, a user with ~32000 edits, to w:en:Kamleshwar added link to article at legitimate use
  18. w:en:User:Forestgarden to w:en:Alternative education added link to : legitimate use
  19. Whitelisted w:en:User:Kwsn on w:en:Varna in Hinduism reverting vandalism: legitimate use
  20. w:en:User: to w:en:Indian Roller added link : legitimate use. And so on, I'll just summarise the rest:
  21. (Reverting): Legitimate
  22. Movie review. Not legitimate?
  23. Use as ref in expanding article: Legitimate
  24. Link to article about bird: Legitimate
  25. Photo on article about actor: Not legitimate
  26. Movie review.
  27. Contentious link: Not legitimate
  28. Formatting article: Legitimate
  29. Fixing link: Legitimate
  30. The next 15 links are all to the same blog, so (although not commercial spam) possibly self-promotion (giving you the benefit of the doubt)
  31. See above.
  32. See above.
  33. See above.
  34. See above.
  35. See above.
  36. See above.
  37. See above.
  38. See above.
  39. See above.
  40. See above.
  41. See above.
  42. See above.
  43. See above.
  44. See above.
  45. Link to photo in article about singer: Not legitimate.
  46. Movie review.
  47. Link to photo in article about movie.
  48. Ref for article about temple: Legitimate
  49. Same as above: Legitimate
  50. Movie review.
  51. Well-intentioned ref, though unreliable: still, not spam
  52. Useless link. (Neither spam nor legitimate.)
  53. Link to photo of movie actor.
  54. Ref for school: Legitimate use
  55. Whitelisted user adding link to bio: Legitimate use
  56. Link to photo of actor.
  57. Adding refs: Legitimate use
  58. Whitelisted user (admin) adding ref for school: Legitimate use
  59. Article about museum: Legitimate use
  60. Link to photo of actor.
  61. Link to photo of (same) actor, among others.
  62. Link to photo of actor
  63. Link to photo of actor
  64. Image added by user who undid it immediately
  65. Used as ref for expanding article about person: Legitimate use
  66. Same as above: Legitimate use
  67. Link to photo of actor
  68. Link to photo of actor
  69. Link to photo of actor
  70. Used as ref for expanding article about place: Legitimate use
  71. Link to photo of actor
  72. Link to photo of actor
  73. Link to photo of actor
  74. Used as ref for place article: Legitimate use
  75. Used as ref for place article: Legitimate use
  76. Having to comment out used reference because of this blacklist: Legitimate edit
  77. Movie review
  78. And finally, adding link to Sulekha in article about Sulekha: Legitimate use!
There you go. That's about three dozen, or about half, of legitimate uses, the rest well-intentioned or harmless, easily handled attempts, and certainly no "massive spamming". And for some reason this COIbot's linkreport doesn't include all the entries that were in the older report, such as the clearly useful (and legitimate) links at (on w:en) Gokarnanatheshwara Temple, Rangeya Raghav, Ramavriksha Benipuri, Camille Bulcke, Subhadra Kumari Chauhan, Gopal Singh Nepali, etc., and most of the links on other wikis. There's no trace of the "large-scale spamming campaign" or "unquestionably abusive behaviour [...] across multiple projects" that were used for blocking this domain in the first place, using this same evidence that points otherwise! The use of Sulekha is not any worse than that of several that we don't have domain-wide blacklists for, like Geocities, Tripod, Blogspot, or Wordpress — and, like those, there's no compelling reason to blacklist this.
Please, can we have reasoned discussion this time, instead of summary dismissal? I've already wasted too much time on this for something that was just a minor inconvenience and something I shouldn't care about, simply because of outrage at the unfair terms of this engagement and its dependence on historical accident. :p Shreevatsa 05:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) User:Mike.lifeguard pointed that I didn't mention the most relevant point: that only legitimate uses for it can be found on most of the wikis it has been used on. Again looking at this list, all the unwanted links ("spam") have been on, while there have been legitimate uses on (Bulgarian), (German), en.wiktionary, en.wikinews, (Hindi), hi.wikibooks, (Japanese), (Kannada), (Macedonian), (Malayalam), (Newari), (Polish), (Pushto), (Simple English), (Tamil), (Telugu), (Thai), (Turkish). (Likely legitimate use, but links now dead: (Catalan), (Esperanto), (Italian), (Vietname).) So, as there has been no spam across multiple projects, it is enough to blacklist it (when/if it becomes necessary) on specific ones. Thanks, Shreevatsa 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the information we were looking for. I think we can remove the domain on that basis. I'll ask someone else to review this as well.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  Done I was requested to look into this by Shreevatsta, and based on mike's review and the given evidence its not ambiguously spam and has legitimate purposes. So I'll go ahead and remove this from the list. —— nixeagle 02:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, admins od wikipedia,

Mr. Dirk Beetstra pointed to request this spam removal at this location.

1 year ago, the following URL 2 was added to wikipedia spam lists. It was our, but not direct mistake, because we hired some non-professional agency for promotion, which as later understood make the success of adding this tourism portal in the wikipedia spam list. Which we, as an agency - do not think we deserve it.

We have fired this guys, that were doing this stuff... but unfortunatelly we can stil see when searching google :( spam/meta wikipedia and this web portal listed in it. We want to inform you that this web site has a great significance for international promotion of tourism in Republic of Macedonia, as well as many other things, providing many usefull information and many services.

Thank You! With Respect,

Mr. Goran Atanasovski travel2macedonia manager contact(AT)travel 2 — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Wikipedia isn't for promoting tourism, it is for neutral encyclopedic content. If the link is removed from the blacklist it will still probably not be wanted in articles.
The Google hit (ranked 12 in my search) links to the COIBot report.
One of the accounts involved in the spamming of the link was en:User:Gorco. Other links spammed by that user was and now redirects to The registrant of is a Mr. Goran Atanasovski. Is that too your website?

--Jorunn 12:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Yes - you are right Wikipedia does not promote tourism. As we are turning into a tourism agency, we are just requesting the link to be removed from the Wikipedia spam blacklist. We do not have a request the same URL to be added in the wikipedia articles (unless wikipedia admins have different opinion - since I have tried avoiding political conflicts with it).

I may have not explaind very well yesterday. An young guy from an agency was giving us support and instructions on how we promote the web site, which at that time it was not known. What we have done, I know we have violeted wikipedia terms - but it's been 1 year after and I just want to be removed - since it's a URL of significant value.

In addition I send you couple of articles (unfortunately they are written in Macedonian) to proove that this portal is of great value: - -,-nov-portal-za-turisti If you are requesting, I can arrange english translations. Also we have many web site linking it here in Macedonia, such as the Macedonian Chambers of Commerce.

About the other web site - I'm just the registrant ( domain) and host (for a friend - who doesn't have a C.C.) this has been some 3-4 years ago. I was using his account, because I didn't had my own en:User:Gorco (I still do not have), and I really don't know what he has been doing with his domain here. It is very important to point - that these two web sites do not occur in connection (except that I've got free advertising on it). If you can see, the IP address of the web sites is the same as well as many other linked to the same host account.

My special request is just to be removed from the spam list. it is a tourism portal, and I really do not wish to be listed in a same category as some warez, p*rn and etc...

I will not try to put in any of the articles, unless I got a permission from any wikipedia administrators like you (which I will not ask in the following 2 years for sure).

Thank you for your time. With the best regards, Goran

If you are not going to place the link in the next two years, then why do you request removal from the blacklist now? EdBever 07:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear EdBever,

We just belleive that travel2macedonia as a term and domain occurs in connection with the terms spam and we honestly beleive that there is a possibility for the google engine to block it. When speak of blocking I speak of development of PR as well as google positioning. We really will not try to add this site anywhere here in Wikipedia unless you claim it is relevant to be added.

With regards, Mr. Atanasovski

\bdamascus\.par-darmstadt\.de\b # EdBever # addition; see User:COIBot/XWiki/

Due to past problems with excessive linking to this domain, I do not believe this request should be fulfilled. However, if you believe that links to your domain will enhance the content of our projects, you should suggest inclusion of the link on the relevant talk page. In addition, some wikis have WikiProjects (like the English Wikipedia here). If there is a project for a subject area related to your domain, you can request that the project review the link. If such a project, or trusted, high-volume editors support the use of your links because of its value on our projects, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your domain may well be removed.
Until such time, this request is   Declined. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mike,

I really do not see a reason after all this explainigs, why this action cannot be completed. We are aware of what has happened in the past, and I have mentioned it that I do not want the web site to be added anywhere on the Wikipedia. The problem is that we were directly added to spam list, without even been warned that we brake any rules.

YOu know is very, very different when you get a direct globe, instead of being warned first. If we were warned and then countinuing the same, I would never even asked for this, please have this in mind.

We are aware that the Wikipedia terms have been broken in the past. the same portal has other international .com domain. If we were a stubboarn people we could've made linking with it again, pretending that we are not aware of this problem, but we don't want to because know we know more about the spam procedure and that wikipedia is not a link directory.

We just want this url to be removed from the Wikipedia Spam list (we do not required anything else). Since many listings appear on many search engines. As I have spoken before, this website is developing into a country's main tourism portal and it's really a non-sense if it occurs with blocked/spam lists such as many p*rn, warez, malware website.

As you can see it for yourself, the website is promoting a country. You have my word that the same url will not be added to wikipedia.

Hope you will understand.

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) 17:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi A.B.

Thank You for the answer. For start making into the whitelist at all the places you mentioned that would be a great start (of the entire procces in future).

My point of interest is just getting into the whitelist is not so Me or anyone else to place it here at Wikipedia (without any possibility of getting linked by Wikipedia), but the main and only reasons for requiring this, is because I as well as other people I've consulted with, belleive that the travel2macedonia portal cannot get a higher PR as well as search rank, due to, being into the Wikipedia blacklists.

I will try personally to mention it at Wiki projects as well on any other location that will help the portal to get unlisted from the blacklist.

In addition I provide you some webs that claim that travel2macedonia is a valuable project.

I will try to provide as many other as I can.


Hi! contains photographs of the Spanish rail, which can complement and illustrate many wikipedia articles. Some items in (eg. or ( contain references to, being very useful and without any problem. For these reasons, I request the removal from the blacklist. Thank you very much. 00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  •   Comment - They do have a lot of nice pictures, I think that this link can have use on some articles, but we do have a lot of files also present on Commons. Huib talk 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  Declined. The site has been spammed and has rightfully been added to the blacklist. If an established Wikipedia editor requests removal we will consider it, but you have only made a single edit. Are you connected to the this in any way? --Erwin 10:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no clear route to follow to de-list mistakenly blacklisted websites, so I report this here: The website is Apollodori Bibliotheca ELectronica, a searchable and annotated online bibliography: history of the text, printed editions,textual criticism, etc. It is useful to the adult and informed Wikipedia reader at Bibliotheca (Pseudo-Apollodorus).-- 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (User:Wetman, if the tildes don't work).

This is the clear route for requesting that a blacklisted domain be removed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggested in the report by COIBot that this may not be blacklistable, however the spammer (MHuys and an IP) of this site got blocked on en, and warned throughout. That seemed not enough, the editor persisted and hence the site got blacklisted anyway. That editor had a clear conflict of interest, was blatantly self promoting, and was not willing to discuss at all. Blacklisting hence was certainly not a mistake!

I would suggest that this gets discussed locally first, but I am certainly inclined to have it removed. Kuleuven is the University of Leuven in Belgium. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  Removed  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the personal page of Swiss conductor and composer of classical music Adriano and I would like to add the link to the article about this person in ru:Адриано (дирижёр). As far as I realise, the whole domain is blocked by spam list. Is it possible to exclude exactly from the black list? Andrei Romanenko 03:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just ask for whitelisting on the wiki where you can find a legitimate use.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I have whitelisted this address in where I am sysop. But is it possible to do it for all wikiprojects or I should ask for it in each wiki separately? Andrei Romanenko 16:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no way to whitelist them all in once, the way to do that is removing it from the SBL so I guess you need to ask ik for every wiki one by one. Huib talk 16:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  Declined - Should be whitelisted locally, not removed from the blacklist. Huib talk 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the website of a Telematics company based in Los Angeles with a Research and Development office in New Zealand. This domain website would be linked to from this page and the related product page. Thanks for your help in resolving this matter. Scott Buckland

Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/ only shows a declined request - I can't figure out why this was ever added.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Pathoschild seems to have moved this: [13], [14]... still looking for the original addition.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This one is from the dark ages: [15].  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC) seems to be up, but has nothing related to "wikiblacklist" and the only spam-related link is either defunct or never got off the ground. I'll search for other evidence of abuse, but this can probably get removed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  Removed  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like this site removed from the black list. It is a site which provides friendly information about an Italian tradition. It is a simple site that helps children write letters to "la Befana" who is like father Christmas in Italy. The site is also for the aid of a charity which helps children in Africa. It would be nice to list it on the wiki page about the befana. It is already on the english version but can not be added to the Italian version as it reports the site as being on the black list. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) —Dferg| 17:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

The domain is not blacklisted at meta but it is on the Italian Wikipedia. You should ask there for removal as there is nothing we can do here.   Deferred to it:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. —Dferg| 17:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.

tool for link deletion

Is there a (CLI) tool for a semi-automatic link deletion/unlinking of xwiki spam? In some cases such a tool could be very helpful. It would be a great thing, if this tool would delete links and refs from article namespaces and would unlink links in the other namespaces. I'd like this task not to be done by a bot, because I want to manually confirm every edit. -- seth 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Seth. I use User:Mike.lifeguard/removeSpam.js. It is a handy tool which can be used from COIBot reports or directly from Special:Linksearch. It can be configured to remove references, external links or both at the same time. Customizable summaries also avalaible (however I found that sometimes is a bit buggy).
Personally, I have this tool on my global.js page so that I can use it on nearly all wikis. If you do not have one and want to do global maintenance stuff I recommend you to see how to create one. Hope that this helps. Best regards,
--Dferg 09:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thx! That looks good. I'll test that at my home-wiki at first. -- seth 14:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
And you can find weblinks globally by using tools:~merl/findexternallinks. It links to all specialpages on wikis having a such link in article/template/.. namespace ;-) Merlissimo 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
That is a great tool! I'm so glad to see that it searches all wikis. Is there any possibility of allowing regex searches, or restricting which wikis are searched? As well, output closer to what one finds at would be nice. As I use this, I'll likely have more suggestions & feature requests. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-10" page.