Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-01

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2007, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.


Additions: Done

One heavily warned user name account plus multiple IPs spammed what links across various financial articles. Warning has not worked and blocking probably won't help given the tendency to shift IP addresses.

Rather than give you dozens of diffs, here are contribution histories for the accounts that we know of:'s contributions, Cirm's contributions,'s contributions,'s contributions. Thanks for your help. --A. B. (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done, with apologies for the slow reaction. However, please be careful when listing sites here - you wanted to block, not It would not have been a problem this time ( is a domain ame 'for sale', but another time you might cause one of us to block a good site. - Andre Engels 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen this URL,, added to a number of articles. Most recently, added by three different IP addresses here: [1] [2] [3]. It seems incredibly unlikely that a blacklist of this domain would affect legitimate editing as it is clearly a spam site. -- 15:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. - Andre Engels 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC),,, (reverted)

Uses at least 3 accounts; the two we've found so far are probably open proxies (accoording to,, -- see user talk pages for details). Rather than list all the diffs, here are those 2 accounts' histories:'s edits,'s edits. --A. B. (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This entry was vandalized by the spammer; I've reverted to the original entry.--A. B. (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done for X mark.svg Not done for the other 3. - Andre Engels 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An "External Link" section and a link to this domain is created from an anonymous user every day after it has been removed from the Electro [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], Breakdance [9] [10] [11] [12], Funk [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], Afrika Bambaataa [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], Kraftwerk [25] [26] [27] [28] [29], Hip hop [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] , Old school [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] , Old school hip hop [40] [41], Rhythm & blues [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48], articles, and numerous other articles as well [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63].

From (but not limited to) the following IP adresses: [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] It's a dynamic IP so just blocking one IP address will not resolve the issue. An IP range block could potentially affect alot of users, hence the request for spam blacklist inclusion. --Dissolve

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Chasing 18speedtranny

Follow up to recent Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/12#18speedtranny requests... User:Pathoschild was nice enough to blacklist the 18speedtranny URL for en:Stoner rock [76]. Now the floating spammer has simply changed his URL to [77]. Do we chase him to this new URL? I don't know anything about MySpace to know if anyone can simply change their URL whenever they want. Wknight94 03:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Neither do I, but has been blacklisted on a 'might work' basis. - Andre Engels 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

See earlier declined request [78], [79]. After ultrareach was blocked [80], spammer shifted to a new open proxy. See example today[81]. Ultrareach block was a good step, but clearly this guy is resourceful and determined. Also, I'm in a hurry and don't have time to write this up for en:WP:OP and I have no admin powers -- if you have time, can you block the open proxy, User: Here's what Completewhois reports. Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. MaxSem 18:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

Numerous IP addresses are adding spam links to this domain in several different articles on the English Wikipedia. Sometimes they vandalize templates. Edit summary is always the same (""). Example diffs: Peter Breggin, Peter Breggin (different IP), Greg Gutfeld, Template gets spammed, Yet another template getting spammed, and even some spanish language external wiki I found on a google search. It seems to still be happening; if anything needs to be cleaned up it will be listed here. 10:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a spambot, should act fast as it is still active with new IPs all the time. Ahoerstemeier 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Still ongoing:[82][83][84][85][86][87][88] Edgar181 19:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC) and others

These three sites have been added as a group to multiple articles on the English Wikipedia by multiple IPs (same IPs as below, FWIW). Here are a few of the many, many examples: [89] [90] [91]

Two IPs are almost certainly open proxies (see talk pages):
Another is a likely open proxy:
--A. B. (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - I hope I got the syntax right. Anything containing 'hoodia' on should be blocked now. and others

These four sites have been added as a group to multiple articles on the English Wikipedia by multiple IPs (same IPs as above, FWIW). Here are several of the many, many examples:[92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]

Yes check.svg Done. Blocked everything on containing 'party-poker' or 'casino-gam. Same proviso as the previous. - Andre Engels 11:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

A fellow who appears to be a little bit confused keeps on massively spamming his really useless website on de.wp (constantly using IPs from the range 84.169.*.*). By now we've had to block the whole range for the second time and we don't really want to go on like this everyday:,,,,,,,, --Gardini 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It#s really getting annoying with that spammer... could someone please add that link to the blacklist, the guy is starting to vandalize multiple articles with that link. Felix Stember 12:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Done --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 13:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --Gardini 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1, many times addded to articles, by - 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (Erik Baas)

Yes check.svg Done Andre Engels 11:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The user who uses IPs from the range 84.191.*.* is constantly spamming on de.wp his useless website (with hardly any article's context / which shows copyrighted content / which only gets content from foreigner sites / which abuses the de.WP:WEB). I tried to focus his attention more then four times on this issue, but he doesn't realize that he's doing crap and doesn't react in any way. Only with continuing his spam:,,,,,,,, --Greetings, Auke Creutz at 14:08, 23. Dez. 2006 (CET) / -- 13:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For those, who are able to contribute with the german language, I've summarized it. -- 15:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done blocked. - Andre Engels 11:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This one has been added since was blocked. [98] - Erik Baas 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Other sites associated with this one and ocassionally added by the same IPs include:

  • registered to Domains by Proxy through Wild West Domains inc. (same as - DNS servers NS2.KENSAVAGE.COM NS1.KENSAVAGE.COM
  • registered to savage technologies, DNS servers NS2.KENSAVAGE.COM NS1.KENSAVAGE.COM
  • registered to: Savage, Ken ********* Rd. Dracut, MA 01826 DNS servers NS2.KENSAVAGE.COM NS1.KENSAVAGE.COM

Added by multiple IPs to multiple articles over the last year. Sample Diffs: [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107].

More complete documentation can be found at: en:User:SiobhanHansa/linkspam#kensavage_com.

Yes check.svg Done added. Other domain names not added. - Andre Engels 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

Recently a swath of likely bots have added links to a number of pages on the domain, almost exclusively on video-related pages like en:Video, en:Super Video CD, en:Video CD, en:DVD, etc. Some spam edits also come in on misidentified articles, e.g. en:Religious conversion. For simplicity I'll list the bots' contribution history rather than the article revisions:

I feel that the repeated instances of spam on behalf of this site warrant immediate blacklisting. -- Y|yukichigai 03:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: A new spam edits by en:Special:Contributions/Miranda235gh. -- Y|yukichigai 04:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE x2: Another spam edit by en:Special:Contributions/Dogjkekf34. Also, may have located the "original" user, or at least the IP: en:Special:Contributions/ -- Y|yukichigai/ 06:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Update x3: Did some digging, found numerous other spam edits linking to popsnail. -- Y|yukichigai/ 07:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 07:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC),

The following discussion is closed: done

Please look at the edit history of Everson v. Board of Education on en.wikipedia, located here. Sites added include,,,,, among others by a slew of different IP's. There are a lot more from different domains added in recent history if someone wants to go through all those and add them as well. 07:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 20:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC),,

The following discussion is closed: done

Were recently added numerous times, sometimes as external links, sometimes as pure spam in the middle of articles, mostly by rotating IP addresses in Turkey. Reference discussion [108] --ArmadilloFromHell 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Still happening, see [109]] for the latest vandalization and [110] for a list of known delinqents --ArmadilloFromHell 14:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Dbl2010 18:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

We have been battling a persistent spammer/vandal over this one for several months. Here are the user contributions for the spamming accounts: [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]

See also:

This user also appears established an account on Meta and is probably monitoring this page via the e-mail feature. See this comment on my meta talk page -- this can really only be one person from the nature of the comments.

We have semi-protected the most frequently spammed article for periods, however admins do not wish to keep it protected indefinitely. This spammer frequently goes on a vandalism rampage when his links are deleted or his IP accounts warned. I think life would be much quieter for many of us if you just blocked I understand this is not the kind of broad case you prefer, but it has been quite disruptive and time-consuming nevertheless. Thanks for any help you can give us. --A. B. (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 13:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Selected and subdomains

Another editor recently requested all of be blacklisted in response to spam across many different Wikipedias by an editor known as Vinni-Puh. This request was later reversed after it was pointed out that was a giant Russian hosting company along the lines of Geocities or Yahoo. Here is a list of specific subdomains on (as well as that Vinni-Puh uses for his amazon book referral scheme:


The following discussion is closed: partially done

I'd like to nominate for immediate blocking. There have been many warnings and this user seems to be deaf and blind. See also the numerous edits (and reverts) on the "Web banner" article in particular. --Wit 30 December 2006

I'm sorry but we can't block that user. You should ask the sysops of the English Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm going to add to the spam blacklist; thank you. --.anaconda 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

Multiple IPs and Users [124][125]added spam links of this porn site to wikipedia article "1 Night in Paris" [126]. Warning has not worked and blocking probably won't help given the tendency to shift IP addresses. see [127] and [128] 19:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi anaconda, thanks for blacklisting this website. But this porn website link was reinserted by another different IP address. see [129] and [130] Does this blacklist work on wikipedia? You blocked " \.thehotelheiress\.com " but the address of the website is "". Probably because of that he was able to reinsert this spam link. If possible, please fix this 07:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --.anaconda 10:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

This is a redirect frame used by the permanently blocked vandal and linkspammer Wayne Smith AKA Universe Daily Yale s 07:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

For background, see w:WP:UNID. Strongly reccomend blacklisting this site, where it'll join all the rest of his sites. 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done MaxSem 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC) and accomplices , , , , and all lead to the same paysite that offers copyrighted games for download. In the past three months, these have been added to the English wikipedia on at least 45 occasions from at least 34 IPs, the vast majority of which are abandoned after one use. The site has no other purpose, and (with the puzzling exception of three normal minor contributions) nor do the anons. --Kizor 13:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It turned out there were 94 more spamlinks. Now there aren't. --Kizor 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Andre Engels 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


This site has been SPAMmed several times into all manner of articels using flagrantly deceptive summaries. here by one IP, here by another, here by another. On and on and on... I'm still removing the SPAMs from various articels. 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Update, they're all from w:Hughes Network Systems, which is as bad as AOL in its proxy-sign-on-we'll-give-you-a-new-IP. The SPAMmer is definitely on them and can't be easily blocked. 07:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Andre Engels 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) and related

The following discussion is closed: done

Ecessive long term spammer and Vandal uses Numerous IP addresses and aol proxies to insert spam in several different articles on the English Wikipedia. vandalism, edit summary threats to editors usualy results after removal(such as this example [131]).

Owns and spams these domains as well (many different ips and proxies also, but whois confirms the same owner and email Obviousy he's adept at abusing and disrupting Wikipedia.

I hope All could be added to the list. Thanks--Hu12 08:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, all added. Naconkantari 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
A recent reinsertion has revealed several other domains this owner proxy spammed on the English Wikipedia;
Pleass strongly consider adding these as well, the abuse by this individual cleary is becoming unmanageable, and the focus is now turning to these domains--Hu12 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, all added. Naconkantari 21:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian blog zombie spammers

An ongoing, slow but tedious bit of zombie blogspamming - see [208] and [209] for example.,,,,,,,,,,, well, you get the picture.

Blacklisting and would stop this crap and when I did a web search for links to those domains form Wikipedia the only hit I got was this page on ru:

Yes check.svg Done, added "blogsit\.ru", "blogmania\.ru", "vnunetblogs\.com", "kataweb\.it", and "wmjblogs\.ru" to blacklist. Naconkantari 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest to replace 'kataweb' with 'blog.kataweb'. --Francesco Cosoleto 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Done, thank you. --.anaconda 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This spammer was first caught by Czech editors. For additional information, please see the discussion, "Vinni-Puh's linkspam via -- surfaced again" at WikiProject Spam on the English Wikipedia. Details:

--A. B. (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

done. - Andre Engels 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

I have seen multiple spam attacks on en.wikipedia in the last 36 hours from a variety of IP addresses adding blocks of spam links to articles. Examples include: pornography, Sildenafil, Phentermine and Tramadol. At first glance this site appears to be a search engine, but in reality its just a spam link farm. Try going to the main site and searching for "harry potter" or any other reasonable search term and all you get are spam links and/or paid advertising. I suggest blocking this site as I don't believe it hosts any legitimate content. Thanks, Gwernol 10:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. MaxSem 11:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

e.g. [211] or [212] Phe 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Added by numerous vandals to en:Tourette Syndrome (semi-protected as a result, see for example this recent edit [213]), also linked from other completely inappropriate articles e.g. [214], [215] and [216], wich also seems to be a copyright violation. The article on the website itself has been deleted at least ten times and deletion reviewed and endorsed what seems like every couple of weeks since. Offsite solicitation at (oh please please block!) and at en:Talk:Porcupine#A_porcupine.27s_testicles will give you a fair idea of the kind of nonsense we get from this source. Mostly added by anons, multiple different addresses. Just zis Guy, you know? 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly added by various anons to numerous sex-related articles (such as [217], [218], [219]) masquerading as porn links. In fact there is practically no content at that address, but the linked blogspot profile is basically full of spam, mainly for online drug sales. Fan-1967 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Less of a joke than I thought. Petitions being spammed all over the place, I'm removing about thirty right now. Here are some examples: [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230]. A petition against the new definition of planet spammed to numerous articles on planets, lots of inappropriate advocacy, e.g. [231]. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A vandal with a grudge keeps adding the link to a pornographic video to a user's talk page. Examples: [232] [233] [234]. Three checkuser requests have been made against the user; see w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Vandal with a grudge for details. ( is an erotic website, so there is no reason to have a link to it in any article, with the possible exception of an article about the website itself - which currently exists neither on Czech nor on English Wikipedia.) - Mike Rosoft 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - Try blocking/banning the user perpetrating this first. If that doesn't work, you can come back here. - Andre Engels 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The user has had about 20 accounts blocked already, and his IP address was blocked upon a checkuser request at least three times. - Mike Rosoft 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Yes check.svg Done. - Andre Engels 12:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, can you please add because the link was put in common with some small resolution photos (thumbs) to different wikipedias as sales promotion for the pictures. I´m tired to revert this spam. -- 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, no evidence of spamming outside one account, and spam blacklist is helpless against urls without links. MaxSem 20:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If you check his Images on Commons then you see, that he spams in every wikipedia, for example this . I think his images should be deleted, but this is another thing--Ar-ras 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


An IP try from time to time to include articles as externals links for video games, but those articles gives no informations and try to sell the game to the reader.

That the third time I have to explore many wikipedias to revert it, and I think that it would be better if added to the SpamBlackList.


Chico 16:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Andre Engels 13:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[235] and every few days in en:Kraków article (or realed, ex. [236]).--Piotrus 19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC) and

Spammed the Sonikmatter Wiki

here andhere. Other talk pages also spammed, but pages deleted entirely.

This spam seems to be widespread - Google Search and google search 2

The Puppeteer 02:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Andre Engels 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Serial spammer at en, has been adding the above link to multiple pages with multiple accounts. en:User:Probuzz and en:User:Labnol were the two socks blocked today, so who knows what other socks may be hiding in the wings. Syrthiss 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Indian DVD and book merchant -- spams not just Indian articles but even articles like en:MediaWiki and en:Television program. Uses multiple sockpuppets and anon IPs; at least one has been blocked indefinitely for spamming.[237] See user contribution histories for the scope of this spam effort:,, Sakthi24, Senthilvelsp, Sselvakumar, Sudhakar ks --A. B. (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Andre Engels 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC) &

Spamming by multiple IP addresses across multiple articles (en:Lagundri Bay, en:G-Land, en:List of surfing areas, en:Seven Sisters, Baja California, Mexico, en:Surfing in Peru, en:Hale'iwa, Hawai'i, en:North Shore (Oahu), ...) over the last few weeks. Site spammed include:


(en:User:MichaelJLowe 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 11:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Constant linking on en:Flaming (Internet) (see history) from numerous IP accounts. Site is not a useful resource and is littered with ads for porn sites. Thanks/Wangi 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 11:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

There's a medium-sized linkspam effort against Wikipedia underway from "", "" , and "" (the parent organization of these.)

These sites have no real content; they exist to draw Google and Yahoo pay per click traffic. GoCurrency sales pitch: "Advertise with us! One of the fastest growing websites in its category, GoCurrency traffic has increased by twelve times the amount from May through October of 2006. Get on board to reach a unique global audience of 690,000 unique users with 2 Million page views per month!" Fxwords is a glossary of financial terms, which gives them an excuse to link from Wikipedia for many of the words in their vocabulary.

Some editors are cleaning out the links, per a discussion in Village Pump, but a link block might be in order. (User Nagle on Wikipedia; having trouble logging on Meta.)-- 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Please, don't give direct links to these sites, they make this page uneditable. MaxSem 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not trying to spam Wikipedia. Yes we are adding links. But they are to decent additional definitions in the case of FX Words - if this is not wanted that is fine but too completely block us seems a little obsessive. GoCurrency provides travel information but more helpfully a free converter for people to use on their sites with other tools we have paid to get developed.

Hey, addition of unwanted links IS called spamming. See relevant policy. MaxSem 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing, repeated spam across multiple pages on multiple projects from a number of different Southwestern Bell IPs. [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] get the idea. LX (talk, contribs) 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You get the idea?????All those pages from are HIGHLY RELEVANT to the content,and provide a lot of information not found on wikipedia.It is a contribution,not spam,obviously!!!So,what can be done to unblock url on wikipedia?Please answer this question.Thank You.( editor). 13 January 2007
Please see the section on links to be avoided in the English Wikipedia guideline on external links, particularly points one (there is no reason the information couldn't be found on Wikipedia, and I doubt you verified that it wasn't in the Swedish articles), three (please consider contributing beyond simply adding external links), and possibly five (my filtering kills the ads, but the source code gives the impression there might be quite a few of them). Then continue down to Advertising and conflicts of interest and read the sentence "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Read the section's main article on spam and how not to be a spammer and note point two and the point about adding the same link to many articles under point five.
I would also expect you to familiarise yourself with Swedish Wikipedia's views on external linking. (This may require you to learn Swedish first, which may seem harsh if it's a foreign language to you, but remember that you made the decision to add the links there, and when spamming in Rome...) In particular, note the bit that says that "svenskspråkiga webbplatser bör föredras framför sidor på andra språk" and "undvik att länka till webbplatser du själv har stark koppling till." Also note the bit on the appropriate number of external links.
LX (talk, contribs) 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Just blanked this section[[262] -- an eloquent confirmation this domain merited blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

wichm sites

Especially on the Dutch (nl) Wikipedia but also on the English (en), French (fr) and German (de) Wikipedia's someone anonymously (see [263], [264], [265], [266] and maybe other IP addressed too) or with the user name 'Wichm' (see [267] and [268]) has added several dozens of external links to his own pages on Internet starting with 


On the Dutch Wikipedia in the last few months several people informed him on his talkpage ([269]) and the IP-talk page ([270]) that he shouldn't add external links to his own pages and that he should stop spamming Wikipedia. He was informed on January 4 on his talkpage that I would request these links to be added to the blacklist if he would continue spamming. On January 6 he replied that all his links are relevant. Even after I confronted him with the evidence that his links are labeled by the local wikipedians of Wikipedia's in these 4 languages as spam and/or not-relevant he keeps claiming that he only added a few links and those had additional value. In total the number of links to his pages is probably more like 50 instead of only a few! And on January 10 he again added a link to one of his pages. [271] So I think it is now time to add the following lines to the blacklist:


to stop this spamming. Only on the nl-Wikipedia some 25 different articles were involved and on the en-Wikipedia the number is probably smaller but still significant. Protecting pages is therefore no option. - Robotje 12:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the English Wikipedia -- 38 links total today across a wide range of articles.
I agree that the blacklist is the best way to stop him. Many thanks, Robotje -- we didn't even know this guy had broken into the kitchen until we saw your listing here. --A. B. (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A site which hosts personal attacks on Wikipedia editors (including me), removed here [272], also spammed to my talk page and other places, some remain in archives [273]. Per ArbCom ruling we do not link to sites which attack Wikipedia editors, and this is not a source for anything anyway. --Just zis Guy, you know? 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. The given links are clearly unwanted, and a cursory check of the site did not give any indication there is much useful for Wikipedia c.s. to link. - Andre Engels 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, kind sir. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC),

Over many months, rosewater and dog pill peddlers spammed these links using 10 different accounts to many articles over a wide range of topics (from en:Rosewater to en:White Rose (oil field) to en:Sufami Turbo). Final warnings don't work -- spammer was at it again today within the last 24 hours. [274] See and for links to user talk pages, edit histories, etc. Also, check this out (registration required/discretion advised) [[275][276].

--A. B. (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I can however not follow the link that you provided - et: is the language code for Estonian, so I am brought to et:WPSPAM, which does not exist. - Andre Engels 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry -- it was late when I typed that. It should have read and --A. B. (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Automatic redirecting site similar to used to bypass blacklistings. LX (talk, contribs) 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Was already here. I fixed it, thank you. --.anaconda 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There has been a long-running dispute on a number of articles both extant and deleted in respect of a campaign by a small group of poeple to abolish the General Medical Council. The blog,, has been linked to the GMC article, two new POV forks created today, other articles on related matters. en:Talk:General Medical Council/Archive 1 shows the kind of thing. [277] is a typical edit, reverting removal of the blog for the umpteenth time. We've had to protect the GMC article in the past to stop this vandalism. Since the blog is tendentious in the extreme and is never ever going to be a reliable source for anything, I wonder if you wouldn't mind blacklisting it please. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. - Andre Engels 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC) and

Automatic redirecting sites similar to used to bypass blacklistings. LX (talk, contribs) 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 15:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad-riddled site added to numeorus articles, often by banned edit warrior en:User:JB196 and his many socks and IPs. see [278] for an example of JB196 re-inserting these links as anon, and here [279] as a sock.

  1. linked from User talk:EthandeSade
  2. linked from Nelson Erazo
  3. linked from Pro-Pain-Pro Wrestling
  4. linked from Azriael (wrestler)
  5. linked from Chris Candido
  6. linked from Steve Corino
  7. linked from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell
  8. linked from Tod Gordon
  9. linked from Alex Shelley
  10. linked from Roderick Strong
  11. linked from Matt Knowles
  12. linked from Ricky Vega
  13. linked from Ricky Vega
  14. linked from Jay Lethal
  15. linked from Rob Feinstein
  16. linked from John Stagikas
  17. linked from Kevin Matthews (wrestler)
  18. linked from Nigel McGuinness
  19. linked from Mass Transit incident (ECW)
  20. linked from Mass Transit incident (ECW)
  21. linked from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell
  22. linked from Jacques Rougeau
  23. linked from April Hunter
  24. linked from Dan Lopez
  25. linked from John Stagikas
  26. linked from Chris Hero
  27. linked from CM Punk
  28. linked from Tammy Lynn Sytch
  29. linked from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell
  30. linked from Tommy Dreamer

Cleaning this lot up now. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From en-wiki: "The owner of - which is an entirely non-notable blog is spamming various marvel comic pages from various ip addresses including He has been doing this for 3-4 months and refuses to stop. He takes no notice of comments or warnings left on the various ip pages. I emailed him directly and he indicated that he has no intention of stopping. Can it be added to the spam blacklist? --Larry laptop 15:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)" --Majorly 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done
--M/ 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC) and

Repeated porn linkspamming, always vandalizing and replacing existing articles, like here or here or here. Persistent and frequent. Fan-1967 02:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Andre Engels 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) et al


I previously requested here that these sites are blacklisted. Although en.wikipedia did do a IP range block[280], the spam has returned, most recently through sneaky template spamming (discussed here) which introduced 3500 links. example1, example2. We are monitoring the links, but please now blacklist these Russian affiliate sites. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I checked on the Russian Wikipedia whether these didn't happen to be 'good sites with bad', but at least the first 4 gave the impression that the few links that were there had to be spammed (links to the home page from various city articles, in one case to three of them from the same article). The last one seemed to be validly linked once, but we cannot get rid of *all* collateral damage. - Andre Engels 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC) et al.


These have been linked by spam bots of several IP addresses the last few days (see contribs [281] and [282]). These may also be part of the same or similar behavior:


(these last two seem to be just plagiarizing Britannica online; some of the earlier ones may be doing the same) 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I have blocked the first 5 you gave. seems to be set up different from the other five; I therefore do not have the impression it is the same people being behind it. Their actions may be bad, but we are here to stop spam, not to judge the internet. Of I could not even ascertain its existence. If you find it's being spammed, refer to this message and I'll blacklist semi-automatically. - Andre Engels 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • & seem to be exactly the same, but they have no advertising and are not selling any product. However, they do seem to be copying britannica without permission and claiming the content is GFDL. Compare [283] and [284] for an example. J.smith 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Recently vandalised the [intercourse] page, and also the [Sex Position] page... <shudder> - 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that website redirects to I support blacklisting that subdomain. However, I can't tel whats on since it's in Russian. J.smith 02:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC),,

Spammer uses multiple anon. and sock accounts[285][286][287][288][289] to spam and (see next request below). Sample diffs: [290], [291], [292]. Blocks[293][294], warnings and numerous appeals to reason[295] have not slowed this spammer down. --A. B. (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Two more accounts [296], [297] and two more domains:[298] and[299]. --A. B. (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
We keep finding more and more spam history. The spammer has been extremely disruptive when confronted. The most comprehensive summary of it all is at en:User talk:Ronaugu. --A. B. (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
See en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject spammer update for the full summary. You can skip the other stuff above if you want. --A. B. (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I also blocked and that seem to be spammed by the same people. - Andre Engels 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC),,

See this 2006 comment from the December Blacklist talk archive. These interconnected companies have rich payment schemes. (They're the "next big thing" in affiliate marketing and multi-level marketing). We've gotten spam from several unrelated spammers[300][301] and now[302] I thought these had been blacklisted earlier; in any event I'd like to request you do so now. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC) is a proxy link to a recently blacklisted site. This is an open proxy not a redirector, unlike tinyurl it adds a banner and post-processes the site. Unquestionably needs blacklisting.


Just zis Guy, you know? 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a routine addition of a new Tiny URL domain name. All the existing domains are blacklisted, so there should be no requirement for diffs. Heligoland 12:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 12:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

More massive pornlink spamming/vandalism of articles, from multiple IP's, like here and here. Fan-1967 02:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC) has been blocked. Blocking the whole site would give too much collateral damage, I think. - Andre Engels 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The eighth URL that leads to the same warez paysite. Spammed by one-use-only anons at a rate of maybe one or two per day. Appeared shortly after the first seven were blacklisted. Could you do the honors? --Kizor 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest round of the search engine linkspamming of sex articles on en, like these. Fan-1967 03:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another open proxy, "your preferred proxy destination" (same text as at least one of those blocked earlier today). There's a whole list of them at, actually. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Added most of them. Thank you. --.anaconda 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) and 57 friends

Spams a wide range of articles with a number of domains:

  • , ,,,, ,, , ,,,,,

The owner's list of domains was identified 29 November 2006; we've seen him slowly roll them into Wikipedia one by one since then,

Additional sites are owned by the same owner and can be expected to appear soon. All are useless junk. If you're willing, I'd like to ask they be blacklisted now so as to save aggravation over coming weeks. Here they are:


User contributions:[303][304][305] -- more domains being used and as yet unidentified. Still spamming today[306] after many warnings and a block. See my user subpage, User:A._B./ for more detail if desired. --A. B. (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (I'm getting RSI this way...) - Andre Engels 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
See this discussion on de.wikipedia regarding spam (first several paragraphs).--A. B. (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive spammer and occasional vandal spams this link using 9 different accounts (that we know of) to multiple articles. Warnings and a block have only made this person feistier. Here is the busiest of the 9 accounts' edit history; see the detailed summary at en:User talk: for more edit histories and accounts. --A. B. (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done

It was suggested I post this case here - the full discussion can be found at: Basically, two sites and .com seem to have been created only to redirect to the Wikipedia page for José Plácido Caamaño. Also, the link was added to that page and the page for Placido Domingo. Is it just weirdness or something worth adding to the blacklist? 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I have been told, it looks like a hijack attempt (one of which succeded on the NL page). The .com version of the page should be blacklisted, too, then. 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
{{done]} - Andre Engels 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Excessive list related

Excessive long term spammer Owns and spams All of these domains on a multitude of articles on the English Wikipedia. (whois confirms the same owner as does these being adsense account pub-3279714273926761). Obviousy he's adept at abusing and disrupting Wikipedia. Even wrote a how to article on it at www\.crazysportsfan\.com/sites/sports-search-engine-optimization.html: "Future of Sports Search Engine Optimization". Please strongly consider these, the abuse by this individual cleary is becoming unmanageable.

  • [388]
  • [392]
  • [408]
  • [409]

I hope All could be added to the list. Thanks--Hu12 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This is the result of some amazing detective work by Hu12 and is actively being discussed on the enwiki Admin noticeboard. There is unanimous support for a ban on the user. The spam is being cleaned up slowly (there is a lot of it). Just zis Guy, you know? 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Partly Yes check.svg Done partly X mark.svg Not done. The last four have not been blocked, since there are links on the English Wikipedia that seem to have been added by well-meaning contributors. - Andre Engels 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This website has a large button on its front page soliciting viewers to spam the URL on Wikipedia, and indeed it's happening: [419] [420]. In addition, there is advertising of it on Wikinews: this is just one of the examples. I think it's in the best interest that we do the best we can to stave off as much insertion of this URL as we can. Messedrocker 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Added to the BL, removed the link from the Wikinews' article. Thank you. --.anaconda 21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


There is already a filter (?:cup|league|football|wayne|premiership|steven|united|athletic).*years\.com for football (soccer)-related sites with little content and heavy advertising. The same people behind the site seem to have created more sites of a similar ilk and spammed Wikipedia with them recently, including:

  • [421]
  • [422]
  • [423]
  • [424]
  • [425]
  • [426]
  • [427]

Could the established filter be extended to take these sites into account? A full list of sites this entity produces is available from e.g. www\.arsenalfcyears\.com/links/index.html] Qwghlm 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Added the abovementioned seven; I have not gone into looking for more.

Has been getting constantly added as link spam to Rugby World Cup and 2007 Rugby World Cup, despite constant warnings to stop. Has been added by multiple IP's. - 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Few additions, but apparently cross-language, was added twice at en [428], [429] at twice on fr [430], [431]. Maybe other languages affected as well. Ahoerstemeier 11:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 11:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Site advertising a French airport taxi business. Spammed by Israeli IP addresses, several of which run web servers (serving up a blank page on port 80), presumably open proxies, to multiple language editions using poorly auto-translated link captions.[432][433][434][435][436][437] LX (talk, contribs) 14:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, spammed also on the French Wikipedia. --.anaconda 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

NICO Club Spam in en:Wikipedia

There are numerous links to web sites affiliated with this organization and its webmaster.See these links for interesting background: first[438], then [439] (be sure to hit the links at the bottom), then [440] and at: http:\www\.webbrainiac\.com/forums/profile,mode,viewprofile,u,190.html

"NICOclub's Nissan forums and Infiniti forums and all affiliated sites are the property of HDS Holdings, LLC. They are independent publications and are not affiliated with or endorsed by Nissan Motor Company or Nissan North America."

Domains involved:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

also --A. B. (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a remaining domain,, but it's a link within en:NICO Club -- we need to get rid of that article somehow first (the organization may be notable, which makes that tricky).

Article is not-notable -- just 349 unique Google hits [441][442] with no reliable sources I could see in the first 100 hits. So please blacklist too. --A. B. (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: article has been deleted. --A. B. (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#NICO Club links has the full story, including accounts doing the spamming, etc. We gave them one more chance and they blew it this morning.[443]

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - I have taken your word for it, and not checked the domains. - Andre Engels 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Andre - You should have done your own research instead of relying on A.B. - He's a dense character. Type "" (without the space) and see why that site is substantially more notable than A.B. and his slapdash research skills. 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)AZhitman

Search engine optimization contest

There is apparently a contest that has been devised to essentially spam whatever they can. It has already hit the English Wikipedia at en:Globalwarming awareness2007 (deleted and protected) and at [444] [445] [446], but members of the Spam WikiProject have found the main list of links. The full list is here, and there is a discussion at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Globalwarming awareness2007/SEO world championship -- expect a spam onslaught. I am making this request on behalf of the English Wikipedia (mainly Peter M. Dodge).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Seconded (as another admin on en:). None of these have any conceivable encyclopaedic use. Just zis Guy, you know? 09:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Please blacklist the whole list. - Taxman 18:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Additional domains still not blacklisted from the list of French competitors at en:User:A. B./Sandbox10:
Also, an editor whose only other edit was to link to a blatantly spammy, link-exchange site[447] apparently used my user subpage as a sandbox to try out:[448][449]
--A. B. (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

More domains from the list at en:User:A. B./Sandbox10:
--A. B. (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC) and

[450] [451] [452] ... AudeVivere 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Seconded. There are multiple IPs adding these links to articles, so blocking IPs isn't the answer. --Deathphoenix (en) 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[453] - more links in this diff from the spammer to blacklist. AudeVivere 17:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also and and and per [454], [455], [456]. -- Fan-1967 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note:Some specific addresses were blocked, but the first part of the address keeps changing. We need blocks on the entire domains. Fan-1967 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Shanel 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Its on a bunch more as well... but thats two. Eagle 101 11:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done guillom 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC

This is a website that hosts abandonware games, which is, as far as I know, not exactly why we have External links sections in en.wikipedia. Worse - it's a pay-for-access abandonware site, so linking there is pure spam of highly dubious nature, plain and simple. It keeps getting added to various articles on en.wikipedia by anonymous users.

Thanks in advance. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of this? Eagle 101 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Dmcdevit 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ecessive long term spamming of on the English Wikipedia. spams on a multitude of articles under many different sock IP's, below is just a sample. Please strongly consider these, the abuse has cleary become unmanageable. the thousands of examples are in the contribs of this sample of IP's.

To expand on this request, it looks like the following links have been spammed in.
  • -- [457] [458] [459]. -- I would say basically every edit made by the prior editors above are Blacklisting seems to be our best option at this point Eagle 101 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Dmcdevit 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agathoclea deleted all thes links:

   * München
        +       * Foto di Monaco di Baviera
        +       * Alcune fotografie di Monaco di Baviera
        +       * Monaco di Baviera: fotografie
        +       * Monaco di Baviera: galleria fotografica

but he left

so where is the difference between these links?

He seems to be a link-loather the page contains definitively material of munich.

so? Is Agathoclea the bing descider of what is valuable and what not?

A Photolog service trying to get their traffic and searchengine rankings up by adding links to their site to a wide variety of articles. Sadly on a rotating IP so it is only a few links added at a time. I have cleaned up enwiki a couple of times but they keep coming back. Todays contributions on enwiki were and But they are active accross a number of wiki's see dewiki and frwiki and possibly more. Agathoclea 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

on ptwiki too, see ptwiki Gunnex 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Due to possible reverts, here are the ip´s: 18.01.2007: 21.01.2007: + 22.01.2007: 25.01.2007: Gunnex 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
very active today on de and en. Agathoclea 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support - a linkspammer has been spamming almost ALL language wikipedia's on the München article 3 times a week. Example: [460] , twice on January 24, once on January 29. Same story on other language wikipedia's (except those using Chinese/Japanse/... writing systems. Guess he can't read those). --LimoWreck 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

the url www.mü is also placed on many languages. And there's nobody talking about spam? Besides the police-officer Agathoclea there are also supporters of the link! Because it IS relevant to the page München! still active on 30.01.2007 at ptwiki, see: Btw, the unsigned comment above came from the same ip Gunnex 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it possible to spam a link[461] after it's blacklisted?[462] I don't understand Portuguese, but it's not on what looks like an empty Portuguese whitelist. I notice that the link is missing its http and just starts with www. -- perhaps that's the reason. --A. B. (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats odd, I would say it takes time for the blacklist to propagate to the other wikis, but I don't think that is the case here. Certainly not 24 hours ;) The rule looks correct, would there happen to be a local whitelist overriding the blacklist? Eagle 101 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Dmcdevit 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC) related spam,,,,,,

Note:certain domains deleted from the list above (but not the actual blacklist) per e-mail request on 10 October 2007 --A. B. (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See en:User talk:Tony.dean for a list of accounts and contribution histories. Has also vandalized Talk:Spam blacklist (this page).[463][464][465][466][467][468][469] --A. B. (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is fairly wide-spread, and all the evidence has been given on the english wikipedia page, if you would like I am willing to import those results into here. Eagle 101 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to do that -- I had not done it in order to avoid cluttering up this page but if that would help, by all means. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I will give some diffs below to demonstrate what domains are the problem. Each external link given below is a link to a diff, the name or IP showing, is who did that particular edit.

I would recommend blacklisted of, as there is a known issue with spam on that domain. As for the others, I am not so sure. Eagle 101 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I requested they all be blacklisted for a reason. I am quite familiar with this spammer, his sites and his business, having spent a number of hours on this case. except for the DSB Wordlwide spammer owns all of those domains as you'll see if you go to those web sites. Typically, if we have a persistent, prolific spammer, we blacklist all his domains based on the notion that he's going to spam them all sooner or later. The behavior is driven by the spammer, not by the URL. You can't say that is "less spammy" than -- it's the owner that's spammy. We can expect him to spam more in the future. has already been blacklisted in the last several days as part of a separate request. This domain has been associated with DSB Worldwide's competitor, searchtexoma (as well as several other SEOs). As I have noted previously, I think the link addition by DSB was intended as a en:Joe job attack on searchtexoma; I think he knew we were about to blacklist searchtexoma.
I laid out the facts on all of this in detail at en:User talk:Tony.Dean, as noted in my original post. Also, there's been some subsequent activity using this additional activity is laid out on the talk page for that IP address. --A. B. (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Dmcdevit 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to propose "" a company which does lots of spam in the German Wiki. Some of their IPs are already on permanent ip black list. But today they startet with new postings. [470] from different ip.

Therefore, it would be helpful to exclude the companydomain. AV 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Dmcdevit 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They've been using spambots fairly extensively on See [471], [472]. They're also spamming "" (see [473]). I've blocked them, but they're coming back from a variety of IPs. I'd appreciate whatever help I could get. Alphachimp 16:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And again..... [474]. Alphachimp 17:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Added yesterday, thank you. --.anaconda 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done (tagged while archiving) Eagle 101 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As per comments made earlier, I will post this request. This one site is the focal point of almost all the vandalism on the various Freemasonry-related articles on WP, and has been for the better part of a year and a half. It also gets spammed into anything tangentially related, however minimally. The site has already been deemed an unreliable source in principle by ArbCom, and I believe that the webmaster of said site is our long-term vandal, who has furthermore been community banned. I think it would alleviate matters substantively to block this domain. MSJapan 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(Background infos) The perp is w:WP:LB AKA "Lightbringer". The comments made earlier are #Prevention_of_trouble_by_a_banned_user. 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Done Dmcdevit 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

URL shortener used by spambots selling drugs. Dynamic IPs, active mainly on [475] [476] [477] (just the last ones, is hard to find them all). Blocking the article will have no effect, it will just move to a new one. --Jollyroger 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

seems to be present yet, please check sintax --Jollyroger 17:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Added while you were writing your request. Thank you. --.anaconda 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
So I guess this is Yes check.svg Done. Eagle 101 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Additions: Not done

The following discussion is closed: not done

Thanks, -- 18:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a reason for blacklisting. MaxSem 16:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. MaxSem 11:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We clean them up, various IPs in Brazil add them back -- see en:WikiProject Spam discussion started a few weeks ago. There are now four of the links added back, plus 73 of the (Given the location, I wonder if the same people are spamming other URLs on pt:wikipedia?). Thanks for your help. --A. B. (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As I was cleaning up the links, it seemed to me some had been added by editors in good faith. We know for sure that the links are pure spam repeatedly linked by spammers.
Contrary to my earlier impression, some of these links had never been removed before. The links are definitely inappropriate per en:WP:EL, but I'd like to hold off on blacklisting the links for now -- I may have been too hasty. Let's see what happens to the links I just removed. .
--A. B. (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

www . dw-studio . com . ar

The following discussion is closed: not done

es:Alojamiento web have been semi-protected to avoid several users removing the whole article and putting spam about this web hosting service. Roberpl 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

X mark.svg Not done, semi-protection was absolutely right thing, blacklisting is for widespread problems only. MaxSem 18:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done

There is a history of several IP users repeatedly adding this spam link to en:Sicily, so I ask this link to be blacklisted. 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (Angelo.romano on en.wikipedia)

X mark.svg Not done, blacklisting is for widespread problems only. MaxSem 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done

Nazi material, illegal in Germany, France and other countries

Bernardlevy 11:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of spamming. MaxSem 18:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, no evidence of malicious use. If we were to blacklist every potentially inappropriate site, blacklist would grow to size of several GB. MaxSem 11:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC) -- blatant trademark violation

Links to a site that is a blatant violation of Wiley Publishing's trademark for its "For Dummies" series of books. Only spammed once[478], but that's enough given the nature of the link. --A. B. (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done If spam does not occur, we need not protect against it. Single time spamming is not enough indication of probable recurring.

I recently removed this link from a number of articles (e.g. [479], [480], [481]) and it was spammed to the Talk of a number of meta-articles by Hexvoodoo ([482]) - most of these talks are now deleted as this was the only contribution, if you need a list I'll provide it but it was essentially every talk page on the category of Foo (nationality) porn stars, e.g. [483] (needs en. admin access, obviously). Has no evident authority and is undoubtedly not needed as a source for anything. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. The issue seems to have been resolved with the user adding the links. Feel free to come back here if the site is getting spammed again. - Andre Engels 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to "notable troll sites"

The following discussion is closed: not done

The following have been spammed on the Wikipedia article "Troll organization":

  • (GNAA)
  • (Sacred Jihad against Slashdot)
  • (some very nn troll org; about 1000 google hits)

The most notable, the GNAA, had its article deleted, so therefore none of these orgs would be considered notable enough for Wikipedia and these links would never have a valid purpose. Also I know that the GNAA homepage contains viruses and shock links and could be harmful to people who visit it.--Azer Red 23:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, no evidence of spamming. Naconkantari 20:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done

Yet another goatse mirror.--Azer Red 15:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Any evidence of spamming or other malicious uses? It's used as a valid link from, so if it isn't absolutely necesary... MaxSem 16:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, no evidence of spamming Naconkantari 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently all of the financial advisers at Smith Barney have their own page, for use in soliciting new clients. A link to the page of a Scott Gaddis continues to be added as a spam link to the Smith Barney article on Wikipedia. Whenever it is reverted, the spammer adds it again within a few days.

The addition of this link is done from a variety of IPs, making IP blocking difficult:

--Crocodile Punter 08:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Soft-protecting the page would the better solution, in my opinion.

Frequent spamming for several days now using dynamic IPs and open proxies on for this site. and its print journal (Europa vorn) is far right, whenever it isn't mentioned in the report for 2006 of the State Departments of Constitutional Protection of North Rhine-Westphalia for the first time since 1988 … The useless postings mostly contain „Sieg Heil“, „Heil Hitler“ (criminal offences in Germany, StGB, section 86a) or „Wikipedia sucks!!1!!1!!!“ and so on. All articles were already deleted. The domain isn't linked from any suitable article. --Polarlys 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (sysop on

Please show me the entries on the deletion log. Even better would be to find someone who is a sysop on both de: and meta to do this for you. - Andre Engels 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I contacted the editor’s ISP. I propose to close this topic for the moment. --Polarlys 10:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

From a recent en.ANI:

  • Diplomatic Passport and Diplomatic Appointment service (with images)
  • Diplomatic Passport and Honorary Consul service (with images)

Bucketsofg 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. Resolved through semi-protection. - Andre Engels 11:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple IPs (looks somewhat unrelated, 3 ISPs) are adding links to,,, to Jerky (food) on en. Discussions are here and here (with several more external sites). Seems less disruptive to blacklist them than to try and block likely sharedips or semiprotect articles. Thanks! Syrthiss 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - I find evidence of only one page being spammed, try soft protection of the page. - Andre Engels 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

on the french wiki the fr:User:LouisDollo, cannot stop adding links to his site : see here... should be great if you may stop this invasion really soon !... bye

X mark.svg Not done - try blocking the user and their IP-number first, if that doesn't work, feel free to come back. - Andre Engels 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent attempts to include on en:Zürich Airport by IPs in the same address block. Many concerns raised on talk page (unreliable, image copyright volitions for starters) and consensus not to include. Thanks/Wangi 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. Try soft protection on the page first; if it gets spammed on other pages, or by multiple logged-in users, you can come back. - Andre Engels 11:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No significant English Wikipedia links (see here; mostly from an AfD about it)... however, this site is a self-described "Free-for-all online visual entertainment, photos, videos. Shocking, humor, sports, political, bloopers, and NSFW content are the main draws on the site." It can lend itself to such abuse as this, and the site is teeming with NSFW ads and internal links. Gracenotes 03:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there really is a case to blacklist, I don't see any real history of spamming that normal admin tools cannot handle. Eagle 101 02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, I'd like to see a pattern of abuse first. Dmcdevit 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removals: Done

There has been a precident set by the inclusion of w:Memory Alpha and w:Wookieepedia on Wikipedia and allowing the links to that site. This article is also under deletion review [484] so it makes it very difficult to present evidence if you cannot link to in the article itself. Futhermore the user who requested the blacklisting is a known vandal on and has a bias, himself editing the w:Memory Alpha article [485] and being a member of Memory Alpha [486], but requesting deletion of Lostpedia's article, incorrectly, as he claimed it was a repost, when in fact it was a complete rewrite. -- 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Removed by Angela on 20 October. - Andre Engels 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Image links

The filter wouldn't let me save a change to en:Iosif Stalin tank where a previous editor had linked to an image: http://www.anyboard [dot] net/gov/mil/anyboard/uploads/Type122%294_18446.jpg. The image is in no way spam, and I can't find any substitutes for it. —Michael Z.

Yes check.svg Done Has been removed. Unfortunately the link to the page version because of which it was added did not work any more, so I was not able to effectively restrict the block. - Andre Engels 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to create a page for this website, and noticed it's on the blacklist. I note part of the reason for this is due to the site being seen as little more than Google adverts and adult links.

This seems unfair as whilst there is advertising on the site, it also clearly contains gigabytes worth of content (clips, games, etc.), none of which seem overtly adult nature. The site is clearly popular, currently in the top two search results for popular terms like 'funny clips' on both Google UK and Yahoo UK. Whilst I understand that popularity alone is obviously not enough for a site to be removed from a blacklist, similar offerings like do have a listing. Fisichella-speed 17:26, 30 October 2006 (GMT)

Yes check.svg Done. There was no clear reason given for the block, so I took your word for it. - Andre Engels 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

www -dot- pseudology -dot- org- contains information about Russian opposition leaders, links are used in Russian wikipedia articles ru:Хакамада, Ирина Муцуовна, ru:Старовойтова, Галина Васильевна (murdered in 1998) --Ilya K 18:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this site was blacklisted after spammer added most of those links. MaxSem 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I confirm, the article Doctors' plot is blocked because there is a (legitimate) link to that site. Can you remove that from the black list? 10:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. MaxSem 16:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the website for a single-player Half-Life 2 mod. It seems to have been blacklisted for some reason, but I honestly don't know why. It's a simple, already-completed mod.-- 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. The whole is blacklisted by Amgine. If there is some heavy arguments to remove it, you should say them. Otherwise, please request whitelisting in wiki, where you need that link. -- mzlla 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, understood. If you don't mind my asking, what's so bad about the domain? Do 90% of sites under it have spyware or something?-- 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly I don't know. It seems to be added by Amgine, who gave no reasons to it. [487] There have been three times someone proposing the its removal from blacklist; Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/07#wz . cz, Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/ and Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/ There might be something of which you might be interested. -- mzlla 21:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC) is a major Czech freeweb. It might have been used by spammers, though apparently comparatively little compared to others (see also /Archives/2006/,,,; however it has been necessary to add it to cs:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist as there are many legitimate and useful websites there. --Maly ctenar 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done There is quite a number of requests because of valid pages in this domain. I would propose using more specific blocks, and only go back to a full blocking if there are any spammers 'subdomain-hopping' - Andre Engels

This site was blocked above and the blocking administrator apparently doesn't want to do the unblocking despite stating that there is no objection to another admin doing so.

The reference to the user's post that was part of the basis for the block isn't a valid link; it directs you to the top level of the help page.

I've visited the site and none of my spam blocker alarms went off - and I have several.

We have no evidence that it "also has copyrighted material that doesn't belong to them". That is an assumption, and is not borne out by the statements at the website:

"We do not allow the following:

  • hate propaganda, hate mongering, or fraudulent material or activity;
  • any material that violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, including, without limitation, copyright or trademark rights;
  • material that promotes, encourages, or provides instructional information about illegal activities;
  • any software, information, or other material that contains a virus, corrupted data, or any other harmful or damaging component;
  • sending unsolicited e-mail or any other type of spam containing any reference to your web site or account."

The site makes several anti-Microsoft statements; that is hardly a reason for blocking it. Absent any real evidence that the site is responsible for spam and/or is violating copyright, the fact that 190 or more pages at Wikipedia link to the site is something that shouldn't be blocked so casually, without more investigation and verified information. Thanks.ChiDom 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - removed by Pathoschild on 18 december. - Andre Engels 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to add this to the Wikipedia Sex Tourism article. John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies considers the following a worthy reference:

Boodram, Annan (2001-08-15). http://www.banned.domain/Travel&Tourism/sextourism.html. Caribbean Voice. Caribbean Voice Inc.. Retrieved on 2006-12-20.

Edgarde 20:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for fixing this. / Edgarde 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay this isn't fixed. Two weeks and not even a reply. What am I doing wrong here? / Edgarde 00:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 00:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - no clear reason given for blacklisting, and site looks bona fide (though ugly). - Andre Engels 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) -- mistake in my earlier request causing big problems

I requested the following subdomains be blacklisted:


Somehow all of got blacklisted instead.

Can you remove all of squidoo from the list except these portions? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is causing a lot of heartburn [488]. Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Funpic is a free webhoster and because of this block, I can't link anymore to my non-commercial and user-extendable picture gallery with pictures of the island Sardinia (e.g. Why is it blocked? -- SehLax 08:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I now saw that is the only webhoster that's blocked because of "no verification" (Spam_blacklist/Log#September). It was already removed (Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/ and then added again ... -- 21:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, please use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've a themeoriented series wiki on my funpic account and want to link this in the wikipedia article to this series. Pleas unblock Funpic.

X mark.svg Not done Naconkantari 19:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the Website is blocked as a spam site, but its the Homepage of an austrian Soccer-Club. Is it possible to unblock it? Greetings --Marcl1984 23:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it works --Marcl1984 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Your message just happened to cross me as I restricted some overly broad blocks. was accidentily blocked when trying to block I now restricted it so that only the intended site is being blocked. - Andre Engels 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Several music-related articles at ru:wiki (e.g. ru:American Life, just crowned with the GA-status) contain links to this now obsolete site. Since these links to not work any more, it is desirable to remove them anyway, but since the site is blacklisted, a Catch-22 situation arises. --Dmitry Gerasimov 15:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - the blocking of has been restricted to specific subdomains. - Andre Engels 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)|org

Please whitelisting "|org". All domain|org is blacklisted in the Spam blaclist of Meta and I cant´t link anything to this page. I can´t request the whitelisting on my local project, because it doesn´t exists! Is here (spam blacklist of Meta)where the domain is blakclisted. Thanks for your time.

Ok, done. Hopefully more specific blacklisting will work well enough in this case. - Andre Engels 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this just a news site? There are quite a few articles that use the site as sources. 07:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Dbl2010 08:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You should control the i.p. numbers of the contributors. You will see that there is no organised spam site movement. JTW is a news site 01:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I added new sections to the article about the game "Vendetta" in Spanish wikipedia and I have a problem with a url listed like spam. It's a FAQ about the game: m/

I don't deny there can be something wrong in other pages of that server, but not in that, I think the link is very useful.


Yes check.svg Done. There might be a need for more specific blocks on this one, but for a site-wide block it's been long enough for one albeit very bad occurence. - Andre Engels 16:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkish net

Hizb_ut-Tahrir I cannot change the article because it has one reference from Turkish net. What I supposed to do? Please helpppppp

You can request that site localy whitelisted in english wiki. --Dbl2010 07:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The block has been made more specific, and editing the page should be possible again. - Andre Engels 16:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I came across this using a bot on the Italian wikipedia, and noticing that several pages where failing because of "spam error". This site is a web space provider for small user pages and such. If I understand the comments correctly, it was blocked for a single episode of spam three months ago not on wikipedia, but on another wiki. Since it's a webspace provider, it actually has many sites on it, also useful ones like the one linked from it:Fisica delle particelle and others. Is it possible to remove it? it:User:Alfio 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. - Andre Engels 08:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I recently wanted to update my user page and... tahdah! the entire domain of seems to be blacklisted (and so is my former personal site of http://halibutt dot prv dot pl. The problem is that the is simply a free-of-charge domain provider, perhaps the most popular in Poland ([ 2 million hits in Google). Hence the suffix is used by, I guess, some 1 in every 4 home pages in Polish. I know some of them might include some malicious codes or something nasty, but blacklisting the entire domain is equal to blacklisting pretty much of the entire Polish internet. Regards, Halibutt

P.S. It's not a major problem for me since I moved to, but I guess it might be a problem for many more people, especially when it comes to citing sources from such sites.

Yes check.svg Done. Block restricted to only. Checking on the Polish Wikipedia showed that the site was linked on a good many articles for apparently valid reasons.

I was working on a english wikipedia article on and I couldn't link to the website because "livevideo" is blacklisted. Please look at the wikipedia article and go to the website. - 05:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I need help with this, I needed to link on other articles too. Like [489] - 18:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I also just tried to create a link to LiveVideo's website. Possibly the reason it got blocked is that the article on the English Wikipedia itself once got blocked from creation. I suspect the website got blocked at the same time, and when article's block was removed, perhaps no one thought to see whether the website had been blocked. Hope this makes sense!-- 13:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (My English Wikipedia user name is "A bit iffy".)
Yes check.svg Done. We were blocking anything containing 'livevideo', apparently considering it a spam flag. - Andre Engels 13:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello A little correction, it's \.gamend\.net with only one e. Thanks !


Can we please get this one corrected sooner rather than later? The Turk Telekom IP spammers are being quite persistent:
LX (talk, contribs) 07:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. With my apologies. - Andre Engels 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it listed? it is a site that has a big music archive - 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it was wrongly put on the list of URL shorteners (like - these are rightly put here, because you can always add a direct link instead of a link. I have now removed - Andre Engels 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the owner of (The Colon Therapists Network) and have been for over 10 years. Our website includes many original articles about colon hydrotherapy, as well as other alternative therapies.

I was just looking at the article about colon hydrotherapy located at: and noticed some incorrect information. But when I attempted to correct the erroneous information, I was told that is a spam website. Our website is very well known in the colon therapists (alternative health) community... For years it has promoted the benefits of colon hydrotherapy on the Internet, so we find it ironic that our website is now considered a spam website by Wikipedia. We built it ourselves! It's NOT a spam site!

Here's were I found the reference to our website...

In a post entitled and 57 friends

Somebody has included our domain name ( with a large group of other websites (57) which may be spam websites. I have nothing to do with the websites listed. In the Whois database -- is registered to David Shane (me!). The other 56 websites are registered to other people and entities I've never heard of. If someone looks they'll see is not a spam website.

Also the post says, "The owner's list of domains was identified 29 November 2006; we've seen him slowly roll them into Wikipedia one by one since then."

I know the Wikipedia link to us has existed for at least a year or more. It wasn't just added recently. And it was added by someone else, not us.

I respectfully request removal of from the Wikipedia blacklist.

Thank-you David Shane

I support blacklist removal.
I compiled the list most of the " and 57 friends" and then submitted for blacklisting. I will go back and check my work. If I've made a mistake, I want to make sure it gets corrected. --A. B. (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears that you had a link on the site and it looked like one of their links (not an exchange link). I thought it was a link.
I question whether links to are appropriate per the External Links and Reliable Sources Guidelines for the English Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the spam blacklist is reserved for hard-core, willful spammers -- which you don't appear to be so I support your link's removal. My apologies for this mistake. --A. B. (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 10:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Removals: Not done

The following discussion is closed: not done

Request one


I feel that unjustly a link to the website Idea Mapping Success which is the site of the founder and book author of Idea Maping (which is also a new page I just added) can not be used due to the spam filter. I am wondering why as it already appears in a couple of related areas in wikipedia, however when adding it as an external link (as the site holding the most examples, both from the book, hiostorical and additional authors) to the Idea map page it triggered the spam filter.

please unblock it so it can justly be put into the page it belongs to. Please keep in mind that this was my first real article I published as well and I am willing to use any advice on how to make it better, so any help will be appreciated.

Thank you, -- 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Lenroc1999

X mark.svg Not done per [490] Naconkantari 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why not? since I am new I would like to understand so I do not pester yoou guys uneccesarily. How is this a spam link? and why? who blacklisted it and under what reasons? how can i get it off the list. Please take the time to help since this is getting frustrating! Lenroc1999 13:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on external links, then reach consensus on talk pages of those articles you want your links to be added to, and only then submit request for removal. MaxSem 14:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for pointing me to the policy pages MaxSem, you should get a shield for helping a newby :) - I have studied them and politely request removal of the link from the spam blacklist or help to relize against what rules it is?
See the point by point answer of the rules for external links at the idea map discussion page and please remove from the blaklist as it clearily does not belong there. Thank you, Lenroc1999 20:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Request two

Dear Wikimedia,

Hello, my name is Jamie Nast. I am the author of a book titled Idea Mapping (John Wiley & Sons, September 2006). If you need more info on my background see

I understand from the person who posted the Idea Mapping Wikipedia entry that my web address is considered spam. He is a great fan and user of idea maps and I was touched by his thoughtfulness in doing this. Now I see huge value in this as previously I was not familiar with much about Wikipedia entries, but let me share a few thoughts on why this external link to is so critical.

One of the major reasons this book was written was to meet a huge need for people who wanted to learn to create idea maps, but couldn't afford to come to a workshop. So the purpose for linking to these maps is not to try to sell a course. One of the most powerful ways my students have learned over the last 15 years is by seeing the examples of others who have created maps. The maps in the book were not done in color (publisher said i t would be too expensive) and in some cases were too large to see in their entirity. At the core of this website is the ability for others to view the original maps and learn from these examples as well as add their own for others to see. You can view these at

Not only does this site contain maps from the book, but there are also some from other business professionals, children, and college students for educational purposes. These additional maps will continue to grow in numbers and applications. There are also many idea maps that were created using MindManager software. The applications for idea mapping include brainstorming, creativity, creating a book of knowledge, studying, note-taking, learning, improving memory, organizing your thinking, clarity, and more.

Therefore it would be extremely helpful to learners if an external link to these maps was approved for other sites that relate to those things I've mentioned above including an external link to the maps on the MindManager wikipedia entry. Because idea maps have a heritage in mind mapping, this would also be another helpful site where an external link would be helpful for learners.

My main objective is to create a huge pool of idea maps where learners can come to see a wide diversity of both hand-drawn and electronic maps. All maps are for public viewing and can be shared with no need for approvals. We just ask that the author of the map is creditted. These maps are not available on any other sites.

I am the world's leading authority on idea mapping, and I would be so pleased if you could make these idea maps a reference and learning tool for more people by allowing these links.

Warm Regards,

Jamie Nast 1-866-896-1024

For the record, the addition was discussed earlier this month. —[admin] Pathoschild 00:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, nobody agrees with this addition on en:Talk:Idea mapping. MaxSem 12:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ledge

Dear Wikipedia, Why have I been added to the Spam Blacklist? The Ledge is a wonderful site about literature, with unique and reliable information. The site is run by professionals in the Dutch literary world. sincerely, Rin 11:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done (invalid) I could find no reason why this ( would have blocked, neither now nor at the time it was submitted. I assume the edit was blocked because of another link on the page

The following discussion is closed: not done

I was going to modify the Italian ytmnd entry, but it turns out that I can't link any page from I can understand that single pages are blocked, but I would like to be able to link at least the home page.

Thanks --NikeXTC 10:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, because it is not possible nowadays. There is not possibility to block only single pages, blacklisting is affecting to whole domain. It is possible to allow linking to some of the subdomains, that request to whitelisting should be placed your own wiki. -- mzlla 16:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
In en: we have locally whitelisted and, so they can be linked on the en:YTMND article, but the ytmnd site is generally blacklisted because of the tendency of YTYMNDers to (a) add YTMNDs to mainstream articles, (b) create and link to YTMNDs which violate copyright, (c) abuse Wikipedia for viral marketing and (d) create and link to attacks on Wikipedians. It took a lot of work to get that compromise hammered out, and it works well enough. Just zis Guy, you know? 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Whitelisting seems to have been enough

I'm not sure the original reason for this blacklisting, but I'm trying to use a link to this site as a reference in a new wikipedia article, w:en:User:Afolentes/Kewlchat_Network_draft. Any help would be appreciated. Afolentes 07:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You can localy override this list by adding the domain to the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist page. Example; w:nl:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 07:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I just added a request to whitelist the site at w:en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. I still think it might be worth removing the blacklist entry entirely, though, depending on what reason it was added in the first place. --Afolentes 08:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take off of the banned list. The site is a new blog that discusses video content related to books. The blog is the first of its kind and, in addition to featuring videos, also discusses news related to book videos and online promotions and reports on how authors and publishers can create their own videos. It is a helpful site for anyone interested in a creative new way to promote books. The book trailer/teaser/video trend is a hot topic in publishing and the site has been referenced on various author's Wikipedia pages (though mostly now removed), including the site for [491]. (The editors for the popular site wrote a book and created a video to promote it, which was featured on Authors like Meg Cabot, Michael Connelly and more also have created videos to promote their books and Wikipedia users should be able to find out more information about this trend. The website is run by the editors of the online magazine The Book Standard and review magazine Kirkus Reviews [492].

The specified site is blacklisted per [493]. I oppose removing it to blacklist, but waiting also other comments. -- mzlla 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a legitimate resource for learning more about book videos and trailers, which are becoming popular with authors and publishers. Bookgirl 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, per Mzlla. Naconkantari 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this site recently and visit it daily. I noticed it didn't have a wiki page so I tried to create and found that it is blacklisted. I found this odd as the site is not spammy in nature. Anyway, it seemed like a candidate for removal (unless there's something I'm unaware of). 21:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

They were spamming en: like mad about a year ago with tangentially related external links. Some of their content is good, but a lot is substandard, and there was no more granular URL pattern that would describe the links we were being spammed with. - Jmabel 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, anyway, I like it. :-) Is there a time limit for the ban? or a way to create a page, but with no links to the site? If not, no worries. I'm just bored and thought I'd make my first wiki page. ... oh, and by the way, is there a "recommendations" list for wiki code? I typed up A LOT about this site, previewed it, and was all pumped to submit when I was slammed by the black list error. I understand the black list, but I think someone should be told prior to being able to type an article. If there's a better place to bring this up, let me know. 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The "spam"-links have all been removed, and the main person who did most of the linking left both wikipedia, and the specific site in question. The sites a good source, unless articles have a (which most don't). Original requester en:User:MatthewFenton and the other guy en:User:JohnQ.Public had a vendetta against eachother, so request was biased in the first place. Even though the site doesn't meet en:WP:Web, it's still a resourceful site for lesser known articles, and foreign language wikis, because, unlike the main tv site-, which is notable, but it's not a good resource for foreign wikis. TVRage has info in languages in other languages, such as Portugese, French, German, etc. that IMDB and have. I'm a member at each, and wikipedia, and (obviously) just joined the Meta Wiki, and want to become more active in the Wiki Communities.The site isn't as useful as, but the supposed link-spam were all relevent to the articles they added, but added by users who didn't quite understand WP:LINK at the time. I'm still going through, removing links that are unnessary, but I feel that the site is useful in some cases, and can be easily removed if unnessary from articles. --Linalu24 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. Blacklisted per [494] and I think it will not be removed. If some foreign language wiki needs it, someone from them could go here to request removing or they can whitelist this site in their wiki. -- mzlla 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Spammed on a daily basis? As if. That's a bit of an exaggeration. That is what I don't understand- Some articles have a bunch of links to blogs, and irrelevent crap, and are kept, even in featured articles, yet a single link is added to a stub without any links, and it's considered spam? I've read Wiki's policy about that over, and over again, and yet I don't quite get it. Just because Matthew Fenton, who is biases towards the site because he's a member of the competitor site, doesn't like the other site, doesn't mean it should be blacklisted. He's one of those editors who take control of articles, and act like they own them, and will revert any change not made by them. en:User:JohnQ.Public isn't, and was never the webmaster, or site owner of TVRage. He was an editor, yes, but that doesn't represent the whole site. He left the site anyways. Being "Spammed on a daily basis". Er, how about a Day basis. It only happened that one day. Any editor could easily revert it. He was later banned from wikipedia anyways, so it's not like he could re-add it. Matthew instead runs to meta wiki, using it as a perfect chance to get rid of his competition with an easy excuse. Okay, so let me get this straight? - If one of you admins here agrees with the Proposer, you get to black list them, and decide if or if not to unblacklist them. I'd rather have a couple admins decide weather or not weather sites should be blacklisted or not, instead of a person just "Oh, I hate that site, BLACKLISTED". I mean, if it was a real legit reason, then I'd understand, but I think it's silly. Maybe a few more admins could give their thoughts. I'm trying to remain civil. I'm sorry if I sound uncivil, but I'm tired, so I probably sound angry. Sorry. just doesn't make sense. It just seems so exaggerated IMO. Please, may I get the opinions of other editors? -Linalu24 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous. TVRage is an excellent resource for television shows, which is where those links were placed. They were not spammed, they were improvements. TVRage is a replacement for the old TVTome, which was bought by CNet and turned into the crapola that is now TVRage is a much better resource for Wikipedia to use, it isn't covered with advertisements and it uses a simple layout instead of all the flash and other junk cluttering up Even if the owner of TVRage is adding links to articles on TV shows, it is completely irrelevant. TVRage should not be blocked. --Stufff 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Added based on this, however I found at first sight valid links to I would propose to not remove the blacklisting, but to restrict it to rather than the whole site. - Andre Engels 10:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 19:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This site is a reference for en:9/11_conspiracy_theories, under the section "Claims related to Jews and Israel." Currently, the address is posted but is not able to be made into a URL due to being listed on the blacklist. While the site may present a distasteful anti-semetic message which I do not agree with, putting it on the spam black list is an abuse of said list, which renders harm to the article in question. Please remove. --User:stufff 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In the page es:Saber_y_Ganar the link to the site it´s only a link to a page of fans of the show. Include phrases from the show´s contestants, not spam.

X mark.svg Not done - doesn't seem to be blocked. Because the request is not dated, I cannot judge whether it was blocked when the request was made. - Andre Engels 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the page itself would be blacklisted. Is it something to do with the domain name? Anna Mnemi 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC) is being used to host pages by spammers. Unfortunately, because of this valid sites on that domain are being blocked too. - Andre Engels 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a very common domain used to cut the length of URLs. Is there a reason why it's blocked? 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's blocked for a good reason: redirect sites allow circumvention of blacklist and users cannot determine where redirected link leads unless he really uses it. MaxSem 14:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Naconkantari 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1. lists as a spam site, which it isn't 2. One cannot post any outside links from because the domain is blocked. 3. Similar sites, like are not blocked and are frequently named, used, and linked to on Wiki, while I supposed it could be called commercial, is not a spam or marketing site nor does it charge a fee or require any subscriptions. 5. The information contained on that site is written by independent writers who are experts in their fields.They can back up their information. The content of the site is varied, can be cited as a local links rather than a general link and is often very helpful in supporting pages here at Wiki. There are many good references that come from that domain and none of them are spam based. Please, unban that url and try to have an understanding of what it is. Mkpelland 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. Let me explain:
  1. This shows that this site was spammes indeed
  2. And since this site doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and external links, it shouldn't be linked to.
  3. The very fact that another site isn't blacklisted doesn't mean that another similar site shoudn't be blacklisted.
  4. It doesn't matter whether this site is commercial or not, it's unreliable and was frequently spammed.
  5. Who said that they're experts? Any fundamental proofs? About how many of them we can be sure that they're really ones whom they call themselves? Is your site peer-reviewed?
MaxSem 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place

Hello wiki people, i hope thats the place to request someone to remove a url from wiki spam list. I think that the domain should be removed from there. not only that it is a large database, arranged in a very web friendly way, also non of the articles (accept 2 of them) is taken from Wikipedia. so the surfers can use this site as another good place to look for many animals breeds information.

Please help me to take this url out of the spam, and if thats the wrong place please tell me where should i write this. Thanx. Gabriel (17 December 2006)

It was added as a result of this request. Naconkantari 05:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Still its not a spam site, it is a very helpful one... also gives the surfer a very good and organized database of islands, and lets him search island in another place not only wikipedia.

Please, help me to take these domains out of the spam list. i dont see a reasonable cause for it to be there...

Hey there administrator, is there anyone who can help this little surffer??? posted by JFD (Dec 24 2006)

A work arround; ask on the wiki where you whould like to use that website to add it to there local MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 13:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the following URL: ""? As far as I can see, it contains information about borders in Europe, but nothing untoward. Please un-blacklist it. -- Regards, 19:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (Ssch)

I can't find any indication on the page as to why it would be blocked. Maybe another link on the same page is the culprit? - Andre Engels 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done


I am the owner of the site and I think that my site was added to the blacklist [495] for no clear reason even after having re-reviewed the external linking policy. Could you please let us know why? Our articles are useful for content and images as well as directly related to the respective wiki page, 7,500 email subscribers think the content is informative, why is it voilating wiki external link policy? Our news section has been up for over 2 years and so we have many others who think our pages are far from spam.

I am preplexed to the reason for our ban as the wiki pages we had links now there are similar type news articles being linked to - specifically.

Most of the above are advertising supported and so are hundreds of other sites on wiki so I cannot see this as a reason....

We would very much appreciate some explanaton and some double checking would show you that our site is counter to user Decromin who reported the links.



X mark.svg Not done. You must not add links to site you own. Period. MaxSem 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This site is in the blacklist for a long time, it was used in many articles. I think its a good animals information website, and it surly doesn't belong to the blacklist. 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See for the background on these people. --A. B. (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I've seen it already.
  • Many sites have links from more than 16 articles.
  • Many sites have AdSense... Even more agressive from this one.
  • For searching animals pictures, the site is very useful (with all due respect, in my opinion, google images is not the best place to search images...)
  • There are exactly 2 articles that are parts of a Wikipedia article in the "Domestic Cats" section, and both of them have links to the original.
  • The site has some useful articles that can be added to wikipedia as more info to the surfer.

I've seen many spam sites that don't belong here, I believe this site shouldn't be one of them...

X mark.svg Not done - first specify a specific page and a specific link you want to put there, then I will consider. Not out of the blank. - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK my friend, for example:

Animals Article:
  • Animals Pictures and Information - http://www.[remove this]
  • Animals useless facts - http://www.[remove this]
  • Creating new breeds - Frizzle chicken - http://www.[remove this]
Snakes Article:
  • Dealing with non-venomous snake bites - http://www.[remove this]
  • Treating and Preventing Venomous Snakes Bites - http://www.[remove this]
  • Venomous Snakes breeds info - http://www.[remove this]
  • Non-Venomous Snakes breeds info - http://www.[remove this]

I couldn't add these links without changing the url to a fake one... so please remove the "[remove this]"...

I can give more examples but i think thats enough...

X mark.svg Not done Looks to me like 'where can I add a link to this site on Wikipedia', not 'where can I find a good link for this Wikipedia article'. In other words, spam. Given the reason for the addition, I need more convincing reasons to remove it. - Andre Engels 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Troubleshooting and problems

w:en:Talk:American World University

The above wikipedia page contains a blacklisted link repeatedly. Not sure how to remove it without also completing erasing the discussion. Badbilltucker 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, blacklisted links removed from that page. You can now use it again. -- mzlla 14:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly blacklisted at 21:48 on 11 October, this edit came in at 22:30, see [496]. Is there a problem? Thatcher131 02:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be blocked. There may have been a slight delay in copying the blacklist to all of the wikis. 16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A problem

The following discussion is closed: fixed

I encounter Spam protection filter when I do any edition in the Ja'far al-Sadiq even an Enter or full stop.--Sa.vakilian 04:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the blacklisted link from that article so it's editable again. Angela 12:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: answered

This is the first time I ever saw the spam blacklist message. It is on the LiveJournal article.--B&W Anime Fan 13:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It was added because a bot was spamming it [497] 16:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked earlier for the site to be unblocked. This hasn:t been done, possibly due to confusion with the site The link concerned is on the page about the NZ writer composerIvan Bootham. Grateful if someone could fix this. Thanks Philip Marshall

Please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 17:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is blocked because is blocked as a whole. Although the given site is a valid one, there are also quite a number of spam sites on netfirms. - Andre Engels 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the administrator for, the OFFICIAL website for the Missoula International Airport in Missoula, Montana. I want to know why this address keeps getting removed from the Missoula Airport Wiki page? This is not a spam site, fake page or otherwise. It is the OFFICIAL airport website! Any other airport in this country is allowed to provide a link on Wiki, so why is this such a problem for Please remove this from the blacklist immediately and allow me to post this hyperlink without further harassment.

Yes check.svg Done, blacklisting of is now removed. I think that Amgine has blacklisted by mistake, when listing Sorry for the inconvenience. -- mzlla 13:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why this was added; it's an excellent wiki farm with free and paid options, which I use myself (and am a satisfied free customer ONLY; I get no reward for boosting this site). Please remove!

Yes check.svg Done. The only spamming I've found was [498], and is (and should be) blacklisted. -- mzlla 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot even find this on the blacklist, but when trying to add it as a link, it says it is blacklisted. Can this be added to the whitelist? Page having isue with was ABBA discography which I had to remove in order to do my update. 08:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is fixed now. See #GateWorld below. --Kusunose 08:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Conceptual problems

I wasn't aware of the spam blacklist until I was just researching a topic, and tried to remove a dead link. I cannot remove the link because another link is blacklisted (I visited it, and it is 100% legit - doesn't even contain any ads). So what do I do? I can't save my edit removing the bad link as long as this blacklisted link is in place, but yet it is perfectly valid and I don't want to remove it just because Wikipedia thinks its spam. The article is Karel (programming language), the first link (link removed because the spam filter blocked it - but only when I actually submitted this post) is triggering the spam filter, the last link Robot Karol++ is what I'm trying to remove. So my comments on the spam filter system:

  • If a blacklisted url is already present in an article, then editing should not trigger the spam filter. This will result in people trying to contribute something valid, receiving a warning because of a legacy url, which will likely result in their giving up and not consummating their edit.
  • The spam warning should appear when previewing an edit, not just when submitting. If it doesn't appear during previews then the system will potentially waste even more of the contributor's time.
  • This system takes edit wars to a whole new level. I've seen many edit wars between owners of competing websites. The spam system gives them a nice mechanism to make even more grief for their "enemy". The system certainly has uses, and at this point could possibly even be considered a necessity, however it will certainly cause new problems of its own (and hopefully they won't cause as much or more grief than the system is supposed to alleviate).
  • A formal method of resolving purported spam entries that already exists in articles at the time the site was blacklisted needs to be devised. Otherwise you're putting spam removal off onto all contributors. Any other type of "housecleaning" at wikipedia happens in specific sessions. For example, I will scan articles looking for specific issues I'm wanting to resolve (usually style issues). Bots do this type of thing all the time. The way this spam filter is currently working completely breaks the normal paradigm of editing at Wikipedia. I propose it be taken down until the various issues can be properly addressed.

The moral of the story: I was trying to make a very quick, casual edit to correct an error while in "view only" mode (ie, I wasn't visiting Wikipedia to contribute, but to view information). I see I cannot make my edit because of the spam filter, so now I've got to go through an arduous process (list the site to be removed from the blacklist, monitor said site to see if / when it is removed, finally make edit) just to make one simple correction. So in a wonderful twist of irony, the broken link, which results in a page containing nothing but advertising, will remain in the story because of a good link that Wikipedia thinks is spam. I see a couple other instances of this happening to other people as posted above - those are just the cases people have taken the time to post here about. It's hard to tell how many good edits this system is preventing that are not reported. --Dan East 15:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The link in question has been added to the whitelist. The link that was causing problems is from of a host that is continually used for spamming across multiple wikis. The spam filter will not be disabled for any reason due to the massive amounts of spam received. The method of requesting whitelisting on your local wiki or removal here is currently the best solution. Thanks Naconkantari 16:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to support User:Dan East above. After the stunning experience of yesterday, being disallowed to update my user page in the German WP, I've been thinking over issue of LinkSPAM avoidance and how it is currently implemented. Believe me, I hate SPAM, which wastes much of my time. How this is currently implemented is simply counterproductive, and does not work.
    1. Links that are in pages already, must be allowed to remain. (If it's not SPAM, they have to anyways. If it IS SPAM, you cannot dump the burdon of decisionmaking upon any casual editor who is fixing a missing colon, e.g., while passing by.)
      I do not mind putting pages on a rewiew-list when an edit is detecting an existing suspicious link.
    2. Hords of cheap labourers are flooding the web with manual linkSPAM, secretly. That is bad enough. Now their emlpoyers have a new source of income. Flood the web with pretty open linkSPAM so as to have competitors blacklisted. Thank you, Wikimedia Foundation, for adding to the vicious circle. --Purodha Blissenbach 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm trying to add an inter-wiki link, "[[he:אל ליסיצקי]]" in the English and Dutch wikipedias. I get the same spam message, that links me here. What's wrong here?

thanks, yellowblood

Yes check.svg Done. These pages contained blacklisted link(s) and now I removed them and you are able to edit them again. -- mzlla 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bidding fee scheme

Tried to remove what appears to be a self added link spam by User:Iphooka under Example sites for a company called Iphooka. All of the edits of this user pertain to the company. When I tried to remove the edit would not save as the above page is blacklisted. Thanks Doc 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

en:Talk:Franscisco Franco

I tried adding something to en:Talk:Franscisco Franco en:Talk:Francisco Franco and now cannot save, apparently (after 10 minutes of investigation) because the page contains a link to a site on So, I tried removing "http://" from the front of that link (I don't want to remove it entirely, it's clearly relevant to the discussion), and I still can't save.

Why doesn't the spam filter "can't save" message give some indication of the offending link? This has been a real waste of time, which must be repeated several times daily; I'm guessing that most people in these circumstances just give up on editing the page.

Further, appears to be a hosting site. Are we sure we want to blacklist it entire?

If someone would ping me at en:user talk:Jmabel when they answer this, it would be appreciated, I'm not normally on meta.- Jmabel 01:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The specified talk page does not exist any more, so we don't have to remove the link. Naconkantari seems have blacklisted because of this, and if you think that it should be removed from blacklist we should discuss about it first. -- mzlla 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I typo'd; that is, of course en:Talk:Francisco Franco, the former ruler of Spain. I note that on the linked diff, all of the spamlinks are "……", I suspect that you should narrow the pattern so as not to block an entire hosting site over one spamming user. Thanks for your help on this, and can you ping me again when you respond. - Jmabel 06:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've got the same problem in es:Jesús Gil with galeon. I think it's not spam, it's interesting data about the article. -- 15:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I tried to edit a page which had the following (legitimate) link on it: http://typhoon.t -- This was blocked because it contained "typhoon. -- to". Is the spam blocker not able to determine that -- is not the same thing as typhoon. -- to? I don't know. But I find this a little irritating and it makes the page uneditable unless I remove a legitimate link. Notice that I had to add the dashes because I can't even post the link on THIS page, which is totally stupid (how am I supposed to get a link removed if I can't post it on a talk page?) -- 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello??? Maybe I wasn't clear. For some reason you have blocked typhoonDOTto. The page in question (w:Critical mass) has a legitimate link to a site which is typhoonDOTtokai-scDOTjaeaDOTgoDOTjp. Could somebody please work their magic so that a blocking of typhoonDOTto does not block every site which has typhoonDOTto in its URL because that is blocking a legitimate site and preventing editing on a page. THANK YOU -- 14:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that many sites in top domain of .to are blocked. That is an outrageous thing, as this invalidates all references to any serious Tongan site. Just to mention a valid link: Law of Tonga: http: // -- 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Now resolved - only is being blocked now, so these ones are not any more. - Andre Engels 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just tried to add the link for the Austrian Floorball Association (AFA) in the Englisch version of the entry for unihockey and get back the spam filter message for the link. It is no spam at all, actually official homepage of the AFA and the link is active in the German Version of the entry. Please have a look on it.

Yes check.svg Done - Andre Engels 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


For some reason, GateWorld ( is triggering the spam blacklist on the English Wikipedia, but I can't find it anywhere either on the list or on this page. It's not a spam site, and if it was added, it should be removed, as it is the single largest source of information for the Stargate franchise on the net. Please note that this is affecting practically every page dealing with Stargate. — BrotherFlounder 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"ld\.net" added by this edit[499] is triggering this. I can't commit my edits of en:Japan because it contains a link to It should be modefied to "\.ld\.net" or something. --Kusunose
Yes, thank you. I added so many at once that I didn't notice the potential problem here. Fixed. Dmcdevit 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

en:Andy Breckman

The article, en:Andy Breckman, has been blocked from editing due to a blacklisted link. I'm not sure what the offending link is, but perhaps a more experienced eye can find it right away. Thanks, - 19:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed, thank you. --.anaconda 20:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


The following text is what triggered our spam filter:

I found this matched the rule board\.to

The filter is a little too broad?Josh Parris 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - Andre Engels 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

「」は安全なはずなのですが、「」がブラックリストに記載されているようで、書き込めません。 "" is safe but "" hangs to the filter. So I Can't write "". -- 06:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Entry removed from blacklist, because it seemed over-broad anyway. - Andre Engels 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Uneditable due to a blacklisted link. MIP 19:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Link removed. - Andre Engels 13:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Installation on third party sites

The following discussion is closed.

I realize nobody here is responsible for troubleshooting Spam blacklist installation on other sites. But can someone point me in the right direction? I can't seem to figure out what's going wrong and the documentation page isn't any help. I've described my problem on its talk page. Thanks for any help. --Sam Odio 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure you have the most recent version, as the old version didn't like long lists. Naconkantari 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It should be the most recent version, I downloaded last week from the sourceforge cvs. Does anyone know of an appropriate mailing list / IRC channel where I can ask for spamlist troubleshooting advice? Thanks, --Sam Odio 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Try mediawiki-l or #mediawiki on freenode. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A way to fight off some spambots

A lot of spammers use generic bots that crawl pages seeking for <textarea> tag, then fill it with spam and submit. On MediaWiki sites this results in vandalous edits like this[500]. My idea is to block all external links that don't follow wiki syntax, that is <a href="blahblahbla">, [url] and so on. I've filed a feature request on this. Comments and suggestions are welcome. MaxSem 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How would someone find and replace links in pages that have the "old-style" links in them? Naconkantari 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Quick search in the English Wikipedia shows that almost no page use it (most results are either irrelevant or have <a href= inside of <nowiki> tag e.g. Framekiller). In case there's still some such links left they'll trigger protection next time they're edited with message what to do, much like Spam blacklist works. I don't think there will be any significant collateral damage, and benefit from such measure could be nice. MaxSem 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello I would like to contribute to DROHOBYCH but there is a spam protection filter Please remove this filter. (I do not wish to remove the generating external link because I checked it and looks like a valid and serious link) thank you

Blacklist shock sites.

While using VandalProof lately I've noticed a number of IP vandals replacing external links with links to shock sites such as Meatspin/etc. I see no reason why these shouldn't be blocked, as they obviously have no valid place in Wikipedia. Dark Shikari 05:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diff links to the vandalism? Naconkantari 05:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example. Its not that its that common, its just that there is no encyclopedic use for linking to shock sites, as far as I can tell, and an overlooked shock site link could cause havoc. Dark Shikari 01:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. I have seen spamming with these too, and I can't imagine any valid use for these. Meatspin blacklisted, if you know other like that I can blacklist them too. -- mzlla 18:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But I dont see why you should be blacklisting, I worked so hard to put it in the shock site pege as an example -- User:Santiago_Roybal

Actually, I would really like to see the important shock sites removed from the blacklist, because their blacklisting causes a problem on the en:Shock Site article itself. For instance, one of the references (an lookup of the page) now triggers the blacklist. The url can be found in this revision of the page, which I can no longer revert to. Mangojuice 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You may whitelist them locally, if want. --Aphaia 11:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User pages

These should be removed from user pages as well? --ChrisGriswold 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

These are not removed automatically, but you are unable to save page which contain one of blacklisted hosts. -- mzlla 13:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Regex pattern: fetch\.php\?media\=

I am using Regex pattern fetch\.php\?media\= to block the spammer who did this:

The spammer used 3 domain names and left 300 links while removing the original content.

To add injury to insult, the Diff and Rollback features were disabled on that page by the spam content. Not sure if it is a page size effect or a syntax effect.

You may want to find your own filter to block him.

--jwalling 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's rather odd... I've never seen a case where the spam screws up the diff engine. Naconkantari 00:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The system administrator has not isolated the problem yet. I have seen this problem once before on our wiki server, so it may be a memory allocation limit triggered by diffing a very large post. --jwalling 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Amgine's alphaworks\.ibm\.com

Is blocking access to what appears to be a normal IBM site. Any ideas why? Thanks 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Already unblacklisted. -- mzlla 09:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Why is this Page on the Blacklist? OK its a very ironic wiki, but however, everyone who gets on it should see, thats just for fun. I dont see anything bad on this.

There's some difference between "irony" and "personal attack". They've declared war on us, no point in attracting even more auditory to them by linking ED fron Wikimedia projects. MaxSem 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think this is a fair use of the spam blacklist --Jollyroger 08:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You can find reasons for blacklisting here. -- mzlla 09:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Still don't think that "they mock us, they are bad" is a valid excuse for blacklisting. --Jollyroger 16:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done anyway. There has been unallowed using of this site so many times, that it should be blacklisted. If you wan't the link there in some specified wiki, it is possible (though I do not recommend), ask whitelisting there. But this is not possible e.g. in enwiki, ArbCom has denied linking before the site got blacklisted. -- mzlla 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read the requirements of use for the spam blacklist, particularly that part that says to "Only blacklist ... widespread, unmanageable spam." The fact that Encyclopedia Dramatica was banned does not make it spam, and including it in this list is a blatant abuse of the guidelines as they are clearly stated. Unless there is a consensus to change the requirements for a domain to be blacklisted in the spam blacklist, this must be removed. --Stufff 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
When it is decided that links to a site are inherently inappropriate, as is the case with ED, then adding them to the blacklist is an acceptable and pragmatic way of helping users to avoid the problems they will attract if they link to it. ED has no possible authority as a source and contains personal attacks on Wikipedians, so there is no conceivable encyclopaedic use for such links (this is an encyclopaedia, remember?). The rules are there as a guide, not for wikilawyering purposes, so standing on the rules in order to facilitate links with no conceivable encyclopaedic purpose is pretty pointless. Any links to ED (certainly on en: and probably elsewhere) will in any case be nuked on sight by admins, and any user insisting on adding them will be blocked, so removing it form the spam blacklist is only going to end up with more drama and friction. ED might want drama, en: does not, thanks all the same. Just zis Guy, you know? 12:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Minor nit: Actually, this being Meta it's alot more (and less) then an encyclopedia. Anyway, this site managed to make itself notorious. Think of it this way: GNAA:Slashdot::ED:WMF. 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What has happend to, why ist it spam and who was the link-spammer?

Its non-commercial aim is to follow the roots of the Christmas carol "Silent Night! Holy Night!". The Hightlight is the broadcasting of the Silent Night Memorial Celebration on the 24th of december as an audio-live-stream. Its webcam has been installed within the project "Bräuche im Salzburger Land", which is CD-ROM series in three parts, published by the province of Salzburg and its institute for ethnology.

I am the webmaster of this website and im interested in the reasons of blocking this url?

M7 has blacklisted it with reason "spam on several wikies" at November 23. He might give your more details. --mzlla 22:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I confirm the blacklisting of this domain as spam, repeated several times

  • Repeated spam inserts: it
  • Subsequent editwar about an image removal request it
  • Spam run observed across several wikies nl nn no et al.
--M/ 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What can I do as webmaster to prevent this spam? if i want to push out a competitor i announce the link for several times an it is blocked?

What are the possibilities to get deleted from the spam list? It's the website to the location of Oberndorf near Salzburg, where the famous christmas carol Silent Night had been performed for the very first time. The Celebration on the 24th of december in front of the Silent Night Chapel will be broadcastet live to the Web. Do you think this link is uninteresting to the community of wikipedia?

It's simple enough: no adverts on wikies, so no competitors. If you want to buy some adv, there is plenty of it on the Internet. Please note that also other sites insistently "offering" something have been removed and will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Ah, just a note: the IP address class you've been writing is the same that provoked the blacklisting. --M/ 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My IP address is one of "inode", the second largest provider of Austria, so what do you mean with your note?

So, for how long will be a domain on the spam blacklist? I am not conscious me of any debt. Is it fair to block the website for the next years because of one person did not keep to the rules of wikipedia?

  • Can't speak for the meta admins, but as an admin on en: I'd say that your stated reasons for wanting to link - including pushing out a competitor - do not seem to be in line with Wikipedia policies. Please fee free to add content instead of links. Just zis Guy, you know? 12:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I Need Help

Can someone remove the blacklisted hyperlink for Maxwell (singer). I am not sure how this happened but now I can't edit the article. Any help will be truly appreciated. -- 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I pruned some cruft from the links, the article now saves OK. Just zis Guy, you know? 12:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why has this (sub)domain been blocked? -- 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Walter added today due to spam on the English Wikipedia. --.anaconda 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Please remove it (replace with subdomain name only). This is large Russian hosting with about million of websites. There're many relevant links to it (see [501]). Edward Chernenko 19:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I confirm it. It looks like you block the complete or only because of one spammer. --DmRodionov 20:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed it from the list. The problem is that with type of hosters it very easy to make many new subdomains. I think it makes more sence to block the large free hosters and whitelist them localy. --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 21:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I point out, that recently was added into blacklist again. Exactly, I have problems with saving an article which links to subdomain Thank you. Ellol 14:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of whitelisting

Has anyone discussed changing the wiki code so admins can save links even if they are on the blacklist? That would add accountability. So if someone had a valid reason for a blacklisted link they could make a request at a page like en:WP:RFPP, the link contents would be reviewed and if it looks ok, the url itself should then be checked in the blacklist discussions to find out if there's still some reason to not link to it. 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Sysops can add blacklisted links, but if you - regular user - want to change something (a typo?) in that page you have to remove it... :-) --.anaconda 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That is sheer idiocy, is it not? you are not allowed to make even minor change to a page without destroing part of content of it, or you must be sysop. That is not everybody allowed to participate any more. --


Hello all. I thank you for your ardent efforts to keep spam URLs off of pages... I recently came across an en:Wikipedia article which cited as its reference; while artnet is not the greatest of cites, and I'm not particularly against the idea of keeping it off of general "external links" sections, when one cites it as their source, it should be allowed to be linked to, don't you think? Please consider this. Thank you. LordAmeth 01:56, 27 December 2006 (GMT)


I just did an edit to a page -- and was informed that it could not be posted because there was supposedly a blacklisted link. I had not added ANY links in my minor edit, and the link specified did not show up anywhere on the page when I searched for it. What's the problem ?? Davilance 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This means that this article already contains a blacklisted link. To be able to save this page, you'll have to remove that link. Actually, MediaWiki tell you which link triggered the spam filter along with error message: The following text is what triggered our spam filter: blah blah blah. MaxSem 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question

Should there be duplications on the list? --HappyCamper 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No... whats the duplication? J.smith 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Prevention of trouble by a banned user

On eN WikipediA, we have a very notorious troublemaker by the name of Lightbringer. One of his MOs is to add utterly unreliable and defective "sources" and external links to the articels he attacks. While this isn't "spamming by multiple sources", would some of the more egregious ones be allowed to be blacklisted? As above, there's no reason to link to these servers from any articel as they're all fringe conspiracy theories. 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say. Why not submit them and we can review them one at a time? J.smith 17:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
See above, 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm having a problem reverting a vandalism due to this filter (see [502]). -- 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, new at this--but the article on sugar, in the section on culinary sugars, has an inappropriate vulgar addition as a "link" which I'm unable to remove (the blacklisted link issue). The link itself does not show up in the edit, only on the page. Thanks.


how do i remove Nate Webb's official website from the blacklist?