Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-04

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


Additions: Done spammer returns

Extensive spamming[1][2][3] of a wide range of telecom and other articles not stopped by blocks and warnings: [4][5]


Back again this month[6] after a 3-month hiatus. --A. B. (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I thought that was blacklisted in January, but apparently not:
--A. B. (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC) was blacklisted on Jan. 31st did someone whitelist this?The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • should be the only site blacklisted here? A.B. can you show us where this user spammed the above sites since you warned him? This is the only edit made by [7] according to We don't have reason to blacklist all the other sites. You warned the user and it was stopped. This is first edit and could have inserted this to get the sites blacklisted. We must blacklist on a case by case basis. If any of the other sites add spam, we then blacklist them. However, steelecommerce sure has spammed a lot in the past, if you didn't give a final warning we should consider this on the blacklist as well.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, clarify to me the pattern that I'm blacklisting for, or show me the spam per link. Thankyou. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, here goes:
  • (new domain just developed February 2007)
All share Google Adsense number, 5087461267623455, or Yahoo number, USYPN0028, and many sites have the name "Gary Steele' on them.
Additional domains Steele has developed recently -- I'm personally not aware if he's tried to spam them yet or not:
  • (March 2007)
  • (February 2007)
  • (February 2007)
  • (February 2007)
  • (February 2007)
  • (February 2007)
Given Steele's use of multiple IPs (including an open proxy in China) and his disregard for numerous warnings and blocks[63][64], I suspect we'll start to see these other new domains as well.
Finally this spammer also added links last year. Those were supposedly blacklisted in January as many spammers were starting to add and other cognigen affiliate marketing links. Yet when I checked the other day, they were still working. See Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/,,; here are the domains that should already be blacklisted (by Andre Engels)[65][66]
If they're not actually blacklisted, please add them. Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ok, I've done all of the ones that a link was spammed. For the others, we will wait, though too much more spam from this case, I'm just going to start blacklisting as they appear. I've also blacklisted the other 3. —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks! What about adding those as-yet-unspammed new links to Shadowbot? --A. B. (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This is very old stuff. The user you referenced posted dsl-internet-service.blogspot this is the only one blacklisted. You warned steel commerce and he hasn't spammed yet. So why are we blacklisting all these websites? According to they are not connected. It is a unique ip address.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Its a pattern of spamming over a long time (they are all from the same google adsense number, which tells me that it is very likely to be the same person and or organization), to prevent additional spam we blacklist everything that is related to it and or has been spammed. If you can show a legit use of dsl-internet-service.blogspot, I am glad to remove. We don't have unlimited time and resources to deal with this. As you noticed, I have not yet blacklisted any of the sites that have not been spammed, despite the fact that they have the same adsense number, but if problems continue, I may not have a choice. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual property dispute /

The following discussion is closed: Done (blacklisted).

Per en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive219# there is a dispute, brought from outside, of quite astonishing bitterness, regarding the ownership of intellectual porperty originally hosted at and now also at; links to the latter were unquestionably added by the site owner (who probably does not own the IP); links to the former were added in some cases by the webmaster, and he edit-warred over the changes, and is being exceptionally belligerent on OTRS. All links to both have been removed from mainspace. The death-camps site has been linked, according to a quick search, at numerous other language wikipedias including de, nl, he, fr; ([67] and others), also the deathcamps link has been removed (presumably due to the same dispute) from e.g. [68]. I think it likely that deathcamps is the owner of the IP, but givent hat the claims are incompatible, we have no external judgement on the claims, only the arguments (often hysterically put) of the competing individuals, and the site, while interesting, has no known editorial processes, the best answer is "a plague on both their houses" and purge the links. I want to close the OTRS ticket (ref. 2007031910009401) so an expeditious blacklisting, if you wouldn't mind, would be much appreciated.

for your reviewing pleasure. There are more, I'm sure. I am trying to recruit admins and the clueful on the various language projects. The site owner of is quite open in his messages to OTRS that it was he and co-owner Chris Webb who added the links to, and it is patently obvious that the motivation to change these to was the dispute described on the deathcamps website. Let them fight it out elswhere. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are they continuing to spam these, or have they stopped? If they have stopped, I don't see much point to blacklisting. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Today? On enWP? No. Because we are watching and because one party is blocked. Tomorrow, and on other projects? I'll put money on it. It's a big and headache, the dispute is ongoing off wiki (and appears to have been so for some time) and the problem is deeply embedded across multiple projects. Just zis Guy, you know? 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The whole thread (archived here) quickly took up 37 kilobytes in less than 24 hours. It appears, as Guy mentioned, to be an intellectual property dispute between the owner of the content and an individual hosting the content at a mirror without permission. This apparently has spilled over onto OTRS and, from what I understand and from my experience in the thread (I removed a significant number of links from both domains overnight), the owner of the content apparently does not want any link to the mirror's site and is being very belligerent about it. While the current issue is not technically that any Wikimedia project is being spammed in a traditional sense (although it may have been at one time), it is such that, I fear, the copyright owner will not stop even short of threatening legal action unless the mirror's sites are all removed from all Wikimedia projects. In order to put out the firestorm, we are asking that both domain be listed on the spam blacklist. Then we can tell whomever is currently corresponding via OTRS that no links from any Wikimedia site can be directed to his or her site or the illegal mirror. It's a bit unorthodox, but it would sincerely appreciated and sorely missed. --Iamunknown 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I must take issue with your description of that anonymous person as "owner of the content" and "copyright owner". He is neither, even (if one were to accept owner's claims, of which this person is kind of an unofficial "representative") - he is the new "webmaster" there, nothing else. Your description of as "illegal mirror" is also false, and maliciously so. You have evidence for neither assertion. --Sergey Romanov 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, Sergey. I'm going to assume good faith and assume that you aren't intentionally misrepresenting my views. In fact, I have absolutely no views on the matter. I don't know if what I said was correct at all. Thus I said "It appears." I don't know if is the copyright owner or if it is an illegal mirror or what it is. I don't know if is the copyright owner or if it is an illegal mirror or what it is either. And I never said that is an illegal mirror. Please provide a direct quotation that says exactly that. Otherwise, do not misrepresent what I said and suggest that I am acting maliciously and in bad faith.
      • What I and others are asking is that this battle be forcibly removed from all of Wikimedia by adding both domains to the spam blacklist. I sincerely hope that this happens. It has already wasted too much time. --Iamunknown 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You did write that "the copyright owner will not stop even short of threatening legal action ". You did not say "alleged copyright owner". You did write "the owner of the content", not "the alleged owner of the content". "It appears" does not cover any of this. As for "illegal mirror" referring to, how else one should interpret "Then we can tell whomever is currently corresponding via OTRS that no links from any Wikimedia site can be directed to his or her site or the illegal mirror"? If I misunderstood this particular bit, I apologize. --Sergey Romanov 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Their dispute is not worth the problem it's causing here. The information is not so valuable as an external link that we need it that much. - Taxman 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to Meta admins: Sergey is the troll who was replacing the deathcamps links with death-camps on enWP. I think you see now what we have been putting up with. Just zis Guy, you know? 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Note to Meta admins: "JzG" is a liar as I am not a "troll". I did replace the links and stand by my (absolutely ethical) actions (replacing the links to an unreliable resource by the links to a reliable resource). (Sorry to everyone, except this guy, for "tough" language, but I am not accustomed to be baselessly insulted on a purportedly authoritative and allegedly civil resource such as this site.) --Sergey Romanov 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - all this is doing is causing a problem, looks like one of the only solutions is to blacklist both. looks like there still is talk. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Where? On enWP we're about done with that. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • deWP is unsure at the moment. More not-blocking then blocking AFAIS. --DaB. 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • enOTRS is still having to deal with the belligerent correspondence. And, from what I understand, the owner of whichever domain (I don't know which) does not indend to stop until all links point to the domain he or she represents; since Meta is not a battleground and neither side appears to be unwilling to resolve this off-wiki, I still support global blacklisting. --Iamunknown 02:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted per OTRS ticket#2007031910009401, this discussion, and the discussion on the en-Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard (and the second one). To simplify writing about the dispute, I'll refer to the parties involved by their respective websites (note the hyphens).

Death-camps appears to have forked from deathcamps (the former asserted this, the latter did not deny it when it was mentioned in the OTRS discussion), so to whom the intellectual property rights belong to (if either) is unknown. Although it would seem logical to blacklist death-camps (which sparked the debate by changing links to themselves), death-camps asserts that the fork occurred because of false information on deathcamps that they knowingly host. Examples and evidence are provided to back this claim, and they're plausible enough that it's not our place to make such a decision.

Further, both parties have openly stated that they placed the links themselves. This is a bad idea for the reasons described more fully at w:Project:Conflict of interest. Furthermore, deathcamps seems to be guilty of trolling and bad-faith changes from death-camps to deathcamps, even in discussions where is being specifically referred to (see the discussion).

Therefore, our choices are threefold:

  • blacklist death-camps and use deathcamps, and deliberately reference our articles to a website that knowingly hosts content that may be incorrect. The fact that it is registered with a free email address further damages their credibility.
  • blacklist deathcamps and use death-camps, and deliberately reference our articles to a website that may knowingly violate both intellectual property rights and [ the copyright] on the design and formatting.
  • blacklist both, avoid both legal and accuracy problems, and avoid the fighting between the two parties (one of which is sure to be unhappy to be blacklisted if one is, or unhappy that the other is not blacklisted if neither are).

Thus, I have blacklisted both. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • One can see from that is the original site since November 2002 or earlier.
  • In fact every mail-address is free. If you have a domain you can use it for mails or not. What's the difference? None.
  • Possible mistakes concerning images etc is not a question of intellectual property.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we need good sources like this one. The original site does not harm any intellectual property rights. There is no reason to loose ones nerves. The holocaust is an important theme and in particular, there is no reason for kicking the references to this site out for all revisionists' delight.
  • Particular in the German wikipedia, I would like to go on to write articles corresponding to this list using the site as source and reference. I do not know a better alternative. -- Simplicius 08:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for blacklisting them. I removed a lot of the death-camp links from German Wikipedia, leaving just talk pages and project space, but I was reverted.[79] I only removed a few of the deathcamp links, and there are still over a hundred.[80] I think that when a site is blacklisted, it's not possible to add that site to a Wikipedia page, but it doesn't seem to have any effect on pages that still have it. Or will the next user be unable to save the page until the link has been removed, regardless of what his or her edit is? ElinorD 11:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD, first of all, I'm not an admin on either Meta or en.wikipedia, so what I write below is in no way "official". I'm just another editor trying to help:
If someone goes to edit a page that has a blacklisted link, then when they are finished and hit "save", a message flashes up on the screen telling them they have to delete the link before they can save their edit. On de.wikipedia, where you have a forced "preview" of edits, I'm not sure if the message comes up before or after the preview. You can check this out for yourself by going to de:Wikipedia:Sandbox and trying to add some blacklisted link such as
If the link is in the External Links section (Weblinks), then the offending link is easy to find. If, however, it's embedded in some footnote or inline citation, then it may take 5 to 10 minutes to find. You are doing your editors a real service to take care of this for them rather than letting them find out the hard way.
At least with the English language blacklist notice, it would be nice if the offending link was highlighted in bold. Also, many editors are surprised and flustered enough that they close the page and lose their edit, rather than copying to a text editor. Or they immediately close the notice page and then forget what it said about saving the problem. If you skim the troubleshooting and removals sections below, you'll find that complaints from frustrated, ignorant, innocent editors trying to figure out how to edit a locked-up page. Many more just give up and don't bother trying to find this page.
As a first step, you'll want to get these links out of the articles. That was done on en.wikipedia. Then I took it on myself to delete the link from user and article talk pages using edit summaries such as this[81]. For user talk pages, I left an additional short note on the page.[82]
I think it's important for German Wikipedians to understand that the Foundation is legally vulnerable to a copyright lawsuit in the U.S. if the potentially infringing links remain in de.wikipedia. The Foundation does not have a lot of money to spend on lawsuits even if they would ultimately win since in the U.S., unlike many countries, the loser in a lawsuit does not usually have to pay the other side's legal fees. So this is not a case of en.wikipedians trying to force an editorial decision on other wikipedias.
If they still want to use deathcamps, I suppose they can do it by adding that domain to the German whitelist (see de:MediaWiki_Diskussion:Spam-whitelist) after it is blacklisted, but please, for the health of all wikipedias, remove the death-camps links. --A. B. (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I whitelisted deathcamps_dot_org at the german wikipedia. If there is a foundation-adjudication to deny this domain, I will delete it. But untill this our user seems to need the domain and we have many articels with that link.
The secound point is, that I think it is not a good thing, that a need of enWP counts more then a need of other project here on meta. --DaB. 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • DaB., I'm sorry if it appears that enWP counts more than other projects; that is simply not the case. The case, in summary, is that a person affiliated with one of the sites was edit warring over links, belligerent on :en:WP:AN and then, when they were indefinitely blocked, continued on OTRS. They were not mad that the links to the other domain were on enWP, they were mad that the links were on any Wikimedia site including deWP. That's okay though, I understand that you absolutely must have those links even if the dispute carries on here, on OTRS, on deWP, or elsewhere. --Iamunknown 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

All, just for the record the Copyright violation and fraud perpetrated by death-camps -dot-org has resulted in removal of the offending counterfeit website by the ISP for infringement. The hyphenated version has been discredited as a fraudulent and illegal website. User FightOnlineFraud

Spammed by multiple IPs to multiple articles: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


This service allows spammers to get some money (few cents) every time a user clicks on the link. It's used mainly to redirect to iTunes store from [90] but it can be used also by the affiliates to to get a "referral profiteering". Add to the blacklist. Thanks. --Madetests 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done redirect site. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (Munblog) spam on Wikipedia

Spammed 26 articles despite warnings[91] and was blocked[92]. Has since started using dynamically-assigned, shared IPs to slip links back in one edit at a time.[93][94][95] --A. B. (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, I also found a link on the Italian wiki that matches the exact same pattern of insertion as the problem on English. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there an efficient way to linksearch all Wikipedias at once? --A. B. (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if you join #wikipedia-spam-t :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rfontaine's and spam on Wikipedia

U.S. spammer hit 40+ articles on en.wikipedia plus appears to have added his link to other wikipedias as well (I just spot-checked several and found the links on Greek, Esperanto and Estonian wikipedias -- probably other Foundation sites as well).

Used at least 6 accounts on en.wikipedia:


  • Total count: 19 en: 6 it: 1 nl: 2 zh: 1
  • Total count: 6 en: 6
  • Total count: 6 en: 6
  • Total count: 6 en: 6
  • Total count: 11 en: 6 (oddity, if you want a list, let me know)
  • Total count: 8 en: 6 fr: 1

For further details, see:

--A. B. (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Note, I have modified your comment above to add links to the linksearches. Join #wikipedia-spam-t on the network if you want to run some of your own. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Huge list of redirection or shortening domains

A ton of URL shortening/redirection domains. This is by no means a complete list, but all the ones here have been compiled from the dmoz entry on redirection sites, and there are more there that have not been listed in this post

  16. From (URL redirection)
  1. *
  2. *
  3. *
  4. *
  5. *
  6. *
  7. *
  8. *
  9. *
  10. *
  11. *
  12. *
  13. *
  1. (URL redirection)

I'll pause for now, but I think this is a rather sizable number. Kyra~(talk) 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I did them all, there is no need for any of these, and quick checks of these show that some have been abused. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) spam is the current "hot" affiliate marketing scheme:


These links have been recently added by a number of unrelated editors. This is just the tip of the iceberg"

In some cases, they were deleting others' referral codes and adding their own. --20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS It's possible there may be some links (but probably not the others) on other wikipedias. --A. B. (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Consider these done. Any more feel free to report, affiliate marketing schemes annoy me, as it seems to be difficult to find and detect. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Another huge list

Even more URL shorteners/redirection domains.

  4. 7ref
  14. - seems to be non-functional for me, but the site is up
  48. 5ux.xom

I am not sure how many of the domains on the second list are on the SBL already, but the ones that I checked manually (eg, the first list) are not on the SBL to the best of my knowledge. And this concludes the list that I got from the dmoz entry. Kyra~(talk) 22:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)\

I just checked the huge list, and the three listed in the second list are not on the SBL. Kyra~(talk) 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - same as above list. (this is the second similar list, all redirect sites) —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Used to linkspam

Gloryhighbone 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I smell a rat here. is a wrestling site, and there is no real benefit in spamming it in those articles when there's dozens of wrestling articles he could have spammed. What with the recent blacklisting of, this may be en:User:JB196 spamming to try and get "rival" sites blacklisted. JB196 has already managed to get, and (since undone) blacklisted by linking to his own articles on them repeatedly. 02:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
startdoneend - clearcut Eagle 101 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC). Lets talk this over a bit. I'd hate to see that we are getting Joe Job'd. But at the same time, if this keeps up I will blacklist. Again, I'm leaning towards blacklisting it. Give me compelling reasons to show me that it is a Joe Job. If it is another Obessed with wrestling thing, with one columnist spamming, we might end up just trying to blacklist that one column, but if we can't figure out which one it is, I don't mind blacklisting the whole site and contacting the site owner either. Eagle 101 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, I'll try and make this as clear and comprehensive as possible. The sites above - DOI, OWW and the geocities site were all blacklisted because they contained articles written by banned editor JB196, who has repeatedly spammed them onto four articles on the English wiki since being banned. I'm not sure what caused pwinsider to be blacklisted, I know it was recent but I've looked at the archives (including the yet to be linked 2007/03) and I can't see why it's been done. JB196 has a long term abuse report here, and part of his extensive MO is to delete links to rival sites. JB196 is aware that his sites are blacklisted, and will know of this page due to it being linked on the {{Uw-spam4}} final warning which he's received many of with his many socks and open proxies he's been using.
The spamming done made absolutely no sense. Surely if you're spamming a wrestling site you'd spam the wrestling articles, or maybe some other popular culture articles? You wouldn't spam en:Finnish People's Blue-whites like the spammer did.
  • The first account was created at 23:21 on 23 March, and spammed 4 times until 23:23 but wasn't warned as can be seen by the talk page history.
  • It's therefore puzzling that the second account was created at 23:25 on 23 March, and spammed 3 times ending at 23:25. Why create a second account when the first one hasn't even received a warning?
  • The third account was created on the Corsican wiki at 00:23 on 24 March, and spammed 6 times until 00:28. With all due respect to the Corsican wiki, if I was a spammer it wouldn't be somewhere I'd hope to gain anything by spamming.
  • The fourth account was created at 00:27 on the Czech wiki on 24 March and hasn't made a single edit according to contribs, so how did User:Gloryhighbone know that person was a spammer? Perhaps because User:Gloryhighbone is the spammer?
  • The fifth account was created at 01:24 on the Italian wiki on 24 March and spammed 4 times until 01:28 (ignoring the talk page message at 03:16).
  • The sixth account was created at 01:31 on the Spanish wiki on 24 March, and spammed 3 times until 01:32.
  • The seventh account was created at 01:33 on the Spanish wiki on 24 March and hasn't made a single edit according to contribs, so again how did User:Gloryhighbone know that person was a spammer, apart from seeing a new user account with a name including Gerweck admittedly for this account.
  • The eighth account was created at 02:10 on the Italian wiki on 24 March, and spammed 6 times until 02:22
  • The ninth account was created at 01:14 on the Czech wiki on 25 March and spammed 3 times ending at 01:15. Although this might seem tenuous the name of the account is Pencilart, and one of JB196's socks was called Penandinkart. It should also be noted that JB196 had spent the 35 minutes leading up to this account being created spamming Extreme Associates and Xtreme Pro Wrestling on the English language wiki until the pages were semi-protected at 01:10 and 01:11 respectively.
The report made here was the first contribution by User:Gloryhighbone and was made at 01:22 on 25 March, and included in the report were details from two accounts with zero contributions, and from multiple language wikis as well.
What it looks like to me is a clear case of looking at this page and seeing what it takes to get a website blacklisted, then spamming by numbers so to speak. JB196 is petty enough to try and get "rival" websites blacklisted, and I believe that is what's happening here. If this gets blacklisted it's absolutely no skin off my nose, but I can only imagine knowing his stubbornness that he'll keep doing it with more sites so it might be something worth keeping an eye on. 05:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The spammer does not seem to have learned:

Gloryhighbone 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Or more accurately, we rumbled your little game Barber and decided not to play along, so you spammed some more. 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
One Night in Hackney: I apologize but I really am not sure what you're talking about.

Gloryhighbone 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So not only do you know that account with no contributions are spammers, you also know that ONIH uses an 81 prefixed IP? You obviously seem to have a great deal of knowledge of Wikipedia, including the numerous foreign language Wikis, perhaps you could tell us who you are or are you just some newcomer making a series of lucky guesses? Or why not bother, as it's breathtakingly obvious you are in fact Jonathan Barber. 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Meta admins, please close this pointless joe-job, and preferably give Barber (Gloryhighbone) a ban to match his enWP ban. we really really do not need his crap anywhere on the project. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Further spamming of this link, all from earlier today:

Gloryhighbone 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by M7 —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
An interesting decision, since this is almost certainly a joe job by Jonathan Barber in retaliation for his crap being blacklisted here and removed from OWW. Not that I care if another generic wrestling forum gets blacklisted, of course :-) Just zis Guy, you know? 12:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

it's a url-shrinking site like --Versageek 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

also: and , so kindly pointed out on the wikipedia article for --Versageek 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to blacklist this site please. There is an account for it spamming. And we need to control it like we did with This is an effort to save us any trouble. We don't want to have to look at each site on a case by case basis. Too much work for admins.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I think it already is, (done is just for the archive bot to archive this section) —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Spammed on en.wikipedia possibly by at least 5 different IPs in the U.S. and U.K. See the detailed edit analysis at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject (permanent link) These may or may not be zombie and/or infected computers. There's nothing useful at the -- a few words or numbers on the screen plus a bunch of links hidden in the source code of some subpages. --A. B. (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I was just finishing reading your report on en, when I got an e-mail from meta telling me you changed this page. :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have on the blacklist (see recent archive), but the same problem occurs with other composers. I'll add some examples, but one can easily find more (check e.g. J.S.Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, Beethoven,...):

--Leonard Vertighel 08:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done spam and illegal content--Nick1915 - all you want 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

More porn linkspam

A persistent porn linkspammer has once again been adding linkspam to another group of articles - his previous set of URLs were blocked here. The IP used each time is different so it's not possible to block him that way. The spammer Sites to block are , , , , , , , , , , , , and

Proof of persistence:

Bunny Luv: one, two, three, four

Chanta Rose: one, two, three, four

Harley Davis: one, two, three, four

Joanne Guest: one, two, three, four

Karin Schubert: one, two, three, four

Kristara Barrington: one, two, three, four, five

Krystal de Boor: one, two, three. four, five

Lea De Mae: one, two, three, four, five

Nadia Nyce: one, two, three, four, five

Tiffany Million: one, two, three, four, five

Veronica Brazil: one, two, three, four, five

Victoria Paris: one, two, three, four, five

XXXena: one, two, three, four, five

Last time around this idiot showed he'll just keep on mindlessly adding the links back into the articles, adding it 10 times to an article in one case. I'm not about to give him that luxury as my patience with him will evaporate long before the tenth reversion occurs. Tabercil 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. <G> Tabercil 03:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal web site spanned in the last two weeks on many different pages of the italian wiki from different IP's. See here, here, here, and here. Ylebru 13:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC) and

Mass spamming on the english wiki and across multiple wikis under a multitude of sock accounts. See WikiProject_Spam case for the sock puppets. Cross wiki Spammer (search) and Cross wiki Spammer (search) Both site are from the same owner confirmed by their adsense ID ( Adsense pub-2076987682246460 )--Hu12 19:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Milos related spammer
Mass spamming [98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115] on the english wiki multitude of sock IP's. Adds one at a time to four at a time per edit. After some communication, the spammer (who owns all these sites) essentialy states he will not stop [116]. SeeWikiProject_Spam case.--Hu12 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamming all over on Wikiquote projects by unregistered user (I believe he uses a dynamic ip). Few edits I found: [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] --Gacio 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, on the same article Linus Torvalsd, on many languages: [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] Please, stop him--Gacio 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 11:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As is obvious from the name, this is an affiliate program for porn sites. Different IPs have been adding these links to en porn star articles for a while now, at a slow pace, but not giving up. However, when they started replacing porn stars' official sites with it started to get really annoying. Given the nature of the program, I don't believe there will ever be any useful content from such sites, I think it's better to just blacklist the domain. Some examples: Replacing official site Replacing official site Adding site Adding site Adding site Adding site Adding site Adding site --AnonEMouse 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone (presumably the site owner) is adding links to this astrology site to all the star-sign articles, changing usernames when he's blocked. It's hard for me to imagine that this site will ever be a useful or important resource... diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, Talk page warnings for Balsal, Block notice for Lalbelal, Talk page warnings for Lulupagol.

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This web site has been spammed across multiple wikis over the past two weeks. Below I’ve done my best to compile links to all the contributions pages of users who have participated in the spamming.

en:Special:Contributions/TNARasslin, it:Speciale:Contributi/TNAWrestling, it:Speciale:Contributi/Tnarules, it:Speciale:Contributi/GsquaredArabian, it:Speciale:Contributi/GoFlowFrickFrack, fr:Special:Contributions/TNARasslin, it:Speciale:Contributi/TNAWrestlingRules, hu:Speciális:Contributions/TNABabay, hu:Speciális:Contributions/LimitofTNASgREATNESS, tr:Özel:Contributions/Crymeariver, cs:Speciální:Contributions/HeavyandAble, sr:Посебно:Contributions/Alertforyoutome, cs:Speciální:Contributions/TNAWrestling, ja:特別:Contributions/TNAlovesHead, vi:Đặc_biệt:Contributions/TNARules, mg:Special:Contributions/Myaccount, zh-classical:Special:Contributions/Fiftynine, nn:Spesial:Contributions/TNATNATNA, az:Xüsusi:Contributions/Finkkkkkkkkk, uz:Special:Contributions/TNAForyou, et:Eri:Contributions/TNAWrestling, en:Special:Contributions/FortuneCookieTNA, mk:Специјални:Contributions/TNALovestoFight, fiu-vro:Special:Contributions/TNAForever, uz:Special:Contributions/TNAWrestling, lmo:Special:Contributions/WhattodoinadaywithoutTNA, eo:Speciala:Contributions/TNAWrestling, sv:Special:Contributions/TNAWrestling, ksh:Spezial:Beiträge/TNAWrestling, ru:Служебная:Contributions/TNAForever, gv:Special:Contributions/TNAWrestling


Squared Trinomial 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • WHAT? This is the offiail website of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, the second largest wrestling organization in North America (only behind WWE). This needs to be removed NOW, otherwise you will hurt hundreds of articles on Wikipedia (TNA PPV's that have their official site at TNA's site, links to TNA's wrestlers bios). TJ Spyke 03:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree with Spyke. is needed to source articles about TNA and their PPVS. ---- GIGGAS2 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Surely that's not a huge band of vandals, rather a huge band of sockpuppets. Wouldn't it be easier to tackle the evil sockpuppets and not punish the rest of us? Did anyone check to see what was before blacklisting? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹SpeakSign 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to immediatly whitelist it on the english wiki, but no its across a crapload of wikis. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem should now be fixed on the english wiki. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Eagle ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


I regret having to be the bearer of news but it doesn’t seem to have slowed down. I do notice though that there seems to be a pattern (if you can call it that) where each account only makes two edits. The other languages which it was being spammed on before are not suffering anymore obviously due to the block, and there hasn’t been any attempts to get around the filter (ie “” edits without the http://) but things haven’t changed on the English Encyclopedia. Here are the newest contributions pages which I have came across, this time all on the English Wikipedia.

en:Special:Contributions/Youscooter, en:Special:Contributions/Hiphopdancequeen, en:Special:Contributions/Fivetree, en:Special:Contributions/Greatnessam, en:Special:Contributions/FratAttackSkat, en:Special:Contributions/Fifthto4252, en:Special:Contributions/HeroofWilmington, en:Special:Contributions/Gangqueen, en:Special:Contributions/AttackofSki, en:Special:Contributions/Frenchski, en:Special:Contributions/TNAroxmysox, en:Special:Contributions/BoogalooKing, en:Special:Contributions/ForeverWild,

Squared Trinomial 10:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have identified the following accounts: en:Special:Contributions/ReiRoRei - en:Special:Contributions/TimberSky - en:Special:Contributions/Heightishot - en:Special:Contributions/MattYorkson - en:Special:Contributions/WebofJune - en:Special:Contributions/DipmanFable - en:Special:Contributions/Skornqueen - en:Special:Contributions/FreeThrowDan - en:Special:Contributions/Johnnsmith2 - en:Special:Contributions/Chewchewflee - en:Special:Contributions/Charmmongol - en:Special:Contributions/Magnificencesong - en:Special:Contributions/SkoolPo. I am going to program User:COIBot with an extra functionality to monitor this link. --Beetstra 11:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, all accounts have only 2 edits. --Beetstra 11:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
tnawrestling is now monitored on User:COIBot/COIReports (code still under optimisation). --Beetstra 12:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Still some troubles, but User:COIBot/LinkReports/ seems OK. --Beetstra 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the ones User:Beetstra listed above here are a few more recent spammers of this URL, all again from the English Wikipedia:

en:Special:Contributions/skirtlessbird, en:Special:Contributions/Fosgotcha, en:Special:Contributions/applescraper, en:Special:Contributions/beautifulbigmonkey, en:Special:Contributions/jimtherabbite, en:Special:Contributions/drinkBradshawdRink, en:Special:Contributions/Fratfro, en:Special:Contributions/thirtythirtythirsty, en:Special:Contributions/himpskip, en:Special:Contributions/fipplefipple, en:Special:Contributions/faygomother, en:Special:Contributions/yougot99beers, en:Special:Contributions/jeetOj,

Squared Trinomial 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


en:Special:Contributions/JimWatsonScrooge, en:Special:Contributions/StellarJones, en:Special:Contributions/Into8soto, en:Special:Contributions/IgoGirlGotMilk,

Squared Trinomial 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JB196. 18:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Meta admins, please block Squared Trinomial as a blatant and now cross-project abuser. I propose that this is removed forthwith from the blacklist, and the Barber is informed in no uncertain terms that he can stuff his nonsense where the sun doesn't shine. This is, of course, a blatant joe job by the serial vanity spammer Jonathan Barber. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"please block Squared Trinomial as a blatant and now cross-project abuser.."

Please explain, sir. I am simply communicating the diffs. It's not hard to know what accounts are spamming them considering Shadow has on his blacklist and so does Beetstra.

Squared Trinomial 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not doneThe account is now a confirmed sock, (see this) and is the same originating IP as the spam sock accounts. This is and was a joe job. I'm going to remove all the sites from the blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Spammed regularly across multiple articles by anonymous IPs over a very long period. Examples, and indication that volume is getting worse:

  • (April 9, 2007) 18 articles by[137]
  • (April 9, 2007) 21 articles by[138]
  • (January 17, 2007) 5 articles by[139]
  • (October 10, 2006) 1 article by[140]
  • (September 24, 2006) 6 articles by[141]
  • (September 20, 2006) 5 articles by[142]

There's probably been more, but these are the only contributions I can find at short notice. -- 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (DeLarge on en.wikipedia)

Consider this Yes check.svg Done but I went ahead and found another one.

  • (October 4, 2006) 4 articles by [143]

—— Eagle101 Need help? 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Spammed regularly in various articles on huwiki from various IP addresses (some examples: [144], [145]). The site itself displays real-time stock charts from a different company without their permission (as confirmed in an e-mail from TDCfinancial Ltd). KovacsUr 09:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect sites/URL shortener sites,

Redirect/URL shortener sites recently added as external links to en:URL redirection‎:

--A. B. (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a small community, but some of its members have engaged several cross wiki linkspam attacks.

14:32, 7 February 2007
23 March 2007
10 April 2007
11 April 2007
12:52, 11 April 2007

These are the ones who I ran across -- there are probably more, and they are unlikely to cease. --Lemmos 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but my english is very bad, I hope do you undestand me. I'm a Wikipedia in spanish sysop, we have a problem with spam from, a website of a company. It can't be stopped with a simple block because they are multiple IPs, and I prefer don't use the semiprotection because many article is being attacked. Some diffs:

Thanks for your help. Tomatejc 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 14:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Site is being spammed to several porn star articles on en.wikipedia: Puma Swede, Cindy Fulsom, Ava Lustra and more. Unfortunately, the IP from which the additions are coming from keeps changing so it's not possible to block that way.

Proof of persistance:

Puma Swede: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Cindy Fulsom: 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, 6, 7

Ava Lustra: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Thank you. Tabercil 21:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated spamming at en:Pit Bull and en:American Pit Bull Terrier from multiple IPs. User has threated to continue adding link from proxies. Ohnoitsjamie 03:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of issues concerning the subject and how his article is being retained on the English Wikipedia (a la Daniel Brandt), Don Murphy has now begun actively seeking out the real life identities of at least 3 users who have been involved in editting the article. While his official site may be of use, the forums and their active threads on attacking individuals is not necessary for any part of the project. An example of Don Murphy actively advertising his use of his forums to seek out the real identities of users can be found here:ūlóng (竜龍) 06:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I went ahead and did —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to note that as a result of preparing for this blacklisting (using nowiki tags on the url in the instance I know it was used), the user reverted meRyūlóng (竜龍) 06:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to make note ofRyūlóng (竜龍) 06:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
And thisRyūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a result of recent developments, Don Murphy has updated his upcoming films page to set up an attack against an editor (with his real name), as well as Jimmy Wales and the project itself. I am requesting that his website be ultimately blacklisted from Wikimedia (no other projects have articles on this individual). For examples of abuse with his website, see the following: [152], [153], [154], and [155].—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

All issues are resolved.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

3 proxy sites used to bypass the blacklist on by: used to bypass the blacklist on by: used to bypass the blacklist on by:

Both accounts sockpuppets of JB196 who has a long term abuse report, and has spent weeks spamming en:Xtreme Pro Wrestling, en:Rob Zicari and en:Extreme Associates each time the semi-protection wore off. 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC) and don't appear to support hotlinking (the posted links returned errors). did return the site. fwiw --Versageek 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
This diff for spysurfing and this diff for hidemybrowsing work fine for me. 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done (a while ago) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC) spam



Spammed by 5 different accounts across 29 different articles on en.wikipedia:

Also spammed cross-wiki:

See en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject spam for more details if needed. (Permanent link)
--A. B. (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC),

Two unrelated URL redirection sites similar to tinyurl.[175][176]
--A. B. (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Added to 17 different articles on Wikipedia by 3 different IPs despite warnings[177] and a block.[178]

See en:User talk: for more details if needed.--A. B. (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

FindMySpecialist, Inc. spam on Wikipedia

24 articles spammed on en.wikipedia by multiple IPs despite warnings:

Note that was used on a different date to spam the links just listed above; that IP belongs to a hotel and these two spam schemes appear to be unrelated. Domains spammed:


Redirect site (suggest also blacklisting):


See en:User talk: for more details if needed. --A. B. (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that FindMySpecialist is just the company that seems to be spamming these? —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct -- FindMySpecialist, Inc. apparently owns the domains. --A. B. (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done all of them. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC) and related spam

87 article-space edits, 54 articles, 11 warnings, 8 domains, 6 accounts, 1 block on en.wikipedia:

Some cross-wiki spam also:

Domains known to have been spammed:


May also have spammed these at some time:


For more details, see en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#spam from and affilitiated sites (permanent link)--A. B. (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC) and related

  • and

All registered in the same manner (Godaddy domains by proxy) within a short time of being added to Wikipedia, use the same google ID 7088798027634037 and have overlap in the chain of IP addresses used for adding them. All sites are anonymous and blog like in layout making them unsuitable at least as sources on the :en Wikipedia. Cross wikiseach did not reveal use elsewhere. Diffs I have found: [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] -- 14:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done multiple IPs shown in the diffs, really no other way to stop this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Vanadlistic[189], abusive[190][191] spammer is adding these links across 20+ articles on en.wikipedia using multiple IPs despite warnings and blocks.[192][193][194][195][196][197] Spammer has also hit the Spanish and french Wikipedias.[198][199][200][201] For more details, see en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject (permanent link). --A. B. (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, this guy was just starting to go on a POINT spree[202][203] with dynamic IPs. I deleted the Spanish and French links.--A. B. (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the same site as above, being used in the same way [204] --Versageek 20:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Massive promotion of this webpage. The "Iglesia de Quetzalcoatl" (Quetzacoatl Church), a unknown group claim that a new incarnation of Quetzalcoatl (a mayan god) is the new Messiah. The article was deleted in Spanish Wikipedia (25 support - 1 oppose), but these members use a dynamic IP (announcing a "war of editions" in Spanish Wikipedia inside the votation), created several sockpuppets (es:user:Tifón 99, and vandalized the articles of es:Quetzalcoatl (proof: [205]), es:Evangelio (proof: [206]) and es:Humanismo cristiano (proof: [207]), maybe they spammed other christian articles linking this group with the mayan god. --Taichi - (あ!) 00:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done drini [es:] [commons:] 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Recurring spam on, local website from Northern Italy, spammed on geographical and biographical articles (see). Also found in several important articles like Leonardo, Ludovico il Moro and other ones. Not the first time. Gianfranco 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it more then one IP address and or account? Otherwise just block it. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course, there were more than one spammer; I can link you this user, other pages too had been deleted because of spam, so I cannot link them (I can remember of this, if you have admin access to history). Gianfranco 18:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This website has been spammed constantly for the past several months, particularly on golf-related pages such as Golf handicap, among others. Several IP addresses have been banned for various lengths of time, but the linkspamming still persists. Respectfully, Rahzel 07:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show evidence of multiple IP accounts causing problems that go beyond normal admin tools. If it is just the one IP that I see, just report to WP:ANI. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, my apologies for not doing this previously (I'm not very familiar with spam blacklisting procedures). The following IPs have recently added to the Golf handicap page:,,, Additionally, has been blocked twice and has been blocked once for repeated vandalism. If these edits are within normal admin tools, I apologize for taking your time, but as a non-admin I'm not exactly sure what these tools are. I spoke with an admin, who also edits the Golf handicap page, and recommended that I request that be blacklisted. Hope this helps, Rahzel 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The spammer is back spamming crosswiki (en, pt, es, it, fr). redirects to the blacklisted domain. Cross-wiki linksearch.--A. B. (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - anyway to figure out if he has any more domains to the same set of adsense numbers or something? —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's going to be Whac-A-Mole for a while. I did find one more redirect site to block:
--A. B. (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Whacked —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These are alternate addresses of the currently ArbCom mandated blocked site Netscott 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Yes check.svg Done. MaxSem 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a question. If Encyclopedia Dramatica has been blacklisted after an Arbcom decision, and Arbcom is an instrument that rules ONLY on, why has it been blacklisted on all wikis and not only on local blacklist of As far I can remember, it wasn't blocked for cross-wiki spam, but only for an arbitrary decision of a single community (en). --Jollyroger 09:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair point; we have no problems with it on en:Wikiquote.--Poetlister 21:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Because ED hosts personal attacks, harassment and "outing" the real identities of Wikipedia editors. Since there is no subject for whihc it could be considered a reliable source, blacklisting should be unproblematic. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

More porn linkspamming

I have yet more porn sites which need to be blocked. The site and the proof: - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Thanks in advance. Tabercil 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add on, if possible.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gblaze42 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, are we actively having a problem with it? I'm not blacklisting these because they are porn, I'm blacklisting them because its very clear this is one spammer who is out to promote his "product". We have spotted over 240 domains that this user has, though not all 240 have been spammed as of yet. (We found them vie google searches, and with about 99% certainty that they are the same site, just based on wording alone. (nevermind that they are from the same host, further technical evidence :) ) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC) sites was blacklisted 3 months ago -- see Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/ Now sockpuppets are spamming links to sites that promote

  1. [208]
  2. [209]
  3. [210]
  4. [211]
  5. [212]

Since the root domains in each case are widely used for legitimate purposes, please just blacklist the offending subdomains. (If you get the time, please also block these en:wikipedia socks and their puppetmaster--A. B. (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Errm Please see ... The site is already on the blacklist, it was never removed... I'm kinda confused :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, was blacklisted 3 months ago as I noted above. The 5 sites or pages listed above have been spammed by the same sockpuppeteer and they promoted It's those five links above that I'm looking to blacklist. (Bonus points for blocking the socks and their puppetmaster). Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Ah I see now... I thought you were saying "reblacklist, but don't block the whole domain" :P —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC) was just blacklisted; now an anonymous IP is spamming the same site with a different domain.[213] Note that the root domain,, is a major hosting service with many legitimate links on Wikipedia, so just the subdomain should be blacklisted. Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lovely, consider it done. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (again)

I dind't found this discussion in the archives, so here's the link to this proposed addition and result.

I will try to explain in other words. "" is already blocked. Other sites redirecting to that one should be blocked too (I think). Please click in one of those previous linksearch I provided (this for example), and then click in one or two links of that list. Note: must be one link similar to and not or something else (linksearch only works for and not, so we get other links). If you click in one of those links you will go to one page with 1 title and 1 image, click on that image and look at the URL, you will see This method is used in all links. Last time had 37 links, and now have 48. (53 with and 48 with It's growing. Mosca 06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Just a question is acting as a redirect site? Whats the possibilty that I will be blacklisting a different part of this site later? (some cross wiki results ) —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC) is for hosting client sites of pt:netcabo portuguese ISP. If you buy cable access from netcabo, you will get a small web hosting accont, like "pwp.netcabo/eagle/". I don't know if have only pages for redirrecting to, but according to this search in google of all pages form that site it seem so, except the home page ( full of links to other sites, and another one ( with details for some expositions. I think this will not be a problem, unless you block all netcabo accounts ( If we need some links from this website later, then we will do something (remove, whitelist...). Mosca 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to edit from a computer at the school where I teach, and am being blocked under this text (, which I don't think should be connected to this institution. 15:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (JNW, wikipedia contributor)

That means you are trying to edit an article with that text. Just remove the text and you are golden :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

sunnymonkey domains



Warned previously, back at it again today.[214][215]

Note that there are 40+ more related domains we haven't seen ... yet.[216][217]

Reference: WikiProject Spam discussion (Permanent link)
--A. B. (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - should we add the other 40+ to shadowbot? —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Good idea! Please add the remainder[218][219] to Shadowbot's list (or point me in the right direction to do it myself). --A. B. (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive spammer with many domains and many IPs

I've recently collided with an aggressive spammer on en:, who owns multiple domains and spams them through multiple IPs, usually from (74.12, and sometimes others). She fights back fiercely, sending hate mail and leaving threats to users that remove her links ([220], or the recent history of my talk page on en:). All the domains are owned by the same person, and a little googling establishes that this is the same user as "Columba-kos". I have no idea, yet, how many of these still are linked on en:, or on the other wikis. There may be a lot.

  • (main domain used by this spammer)
  • (secondary domain -- is a redirect to lacieg2s)
  • forever-sabrina-net

It's quite clear she is on Wikipedia only to promote her websites, and we have made numerous attempts to explain policy to her; she's been blocked at least twice. Thank you for your help, Antandrus 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Xena replies: Now Antanderus. I love the promos, but since I have tried to be nice, don't you think that this reference here should be deleted? As DeVoto once said, be careful.

PSST: Back in the days of 2005 when I was doing research into the damage being done to my own copyrighted images on the USENET, I was on a special line with BELL NEXXIA. I could appear to be from any number of locations by rebooting my network. This list included Quebec City, Montréal, OTTAWA, Toronto (my domicile) Windsor, London (Ontari-ario), Sudbury, Kitchener, Hamilton, and so on. I have been on a fixed line since late 2006, but switching back to the other connection would take a few hours. Then you would be faced with a netrange that, how shall I put it, would force you to block much of the BELL network.

From an unrelated correspondance from June 2, 2006

Now it's Ottawa: - user: [anonymous] 25/50 -Address lookup - canonical name - aliases - addresses - -Next... reset router: - user: [anonymous] 49/50 - log in | get account -Address lookup - canonical name - aliases - addresses

Why bother?

Current lookups will show the folowing:

canonical name aliases addresses

canonical name aliases addresses

Both of these numbers were always Toronto IP's, and show up that way now, but it was certainly a dazzle ships manoeuvre back in the days of deceptive bends.

user: [anonymous] 47/50

canonical name aliases addresses

The final IP shown is me at the moment... FYI

xena starwoman

Courtesy of

Yes check.svg Done We don't tolerate spamming like this, I will be cross posting this to the english wiki counter spam project. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

xena replies: If you read the not-too-fine print on the majority of these .model or forever... Web pages, you will discover that the domains are registered for the sole purpose of protecting the names. I like them (the names, to be azure about this). I don't want teen model agencies to use them. That's all.

For example: Text?

All that is to be found here is to protect a name

........My Aina Marie.........

No other purpose. There are many others, actually, that are not on the list above.

http... (were once active names). This is to tie the identity of the names eternally to the models. Sometimes even x-star breaks her own rules. Rules? What rules. Crisis? What Crisis. With apologies to Supertramp.

As you know, Aina is A Yoruban/Beninian name that means difficult delivery. It is a term of endearment that is tied to the birth of a female child, usually when some misfortune is associated with her birth.

Pardál obláčkový

psst: Another page for you to block

Stoopids Recorded 4 posterity

it is a url shortening service like Was in spam on en.wp [221] --Versageek 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC),,


Cross-wiki, persistent, multiple accounts, multiple domains, 20 to 30 different articles.

Articles spammed -- see:

See en:User talk: for details. --A. B. (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

crosswiki spam over several days - ongoing as of today:

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you understand medicine? I think you have made a mistake. Some articles in ru.wikipedia are written by me. All my articles have many usefull information. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
It is possible that your content may be useful for Russian readers. You were blacklisted because you added your links to many other language wikis. Your content, in Russian Cyrillic isn't very helpful to all those other people who can't understand the language. Perhaps if you remove the links from those other sites noted here, and promise not to add them again, we can discuss removing your site from the blacklist. (however, I don't speak for the admins here - so I can't say for sure that it will be removed). --Versageek 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Content is in English. Titles of some articles are transaleted in other languages. Not helpful content are removed by a readers. It was replaced to commercial links to the medical clinics, some times. I think that information about disease more usefull, isn't it? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

(reseting indent) Thanks for pointing that out. My semi-random clicking of URLs only landed on pages linked to the Russian Wikipedia. In reviewing some of the English pages, I suggest you read these suggestions, in addition my colleagues have pointed out that you appear to have a conflict of interest. --Versageek 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Link-shortening service; no widespread spamming yet, but an ounce of prevention... Veinor

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Link shortening service with 'bulk creation' feature. --Versageek 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 16:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Many different users (mostly IPs) have added links to this site on many videogame entries, for many months. Examples of users include [222],[223],[224], [225], and so on. These users seem to have no interest in improving Wikipedia, only to use it for traffic, in some cases even suggesting it is an official site. When I do a linksearch for, I come up with nothing, yet doing a regular search comes up with many articles which presumably have all contained links to the site recently.(Dreaded Walrus on Wikipedia)

Mmm, let me think on this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and something I didn't think of trying previously:
A Google search for -wiki has a grand total of 8 results, two of which are the official site, and another of which is, which appears to be the former location of the site. This number is dwarfed if we search only on Wikipedia, where even with the nofollow on, there are 27 separate results on User:Veinor's Link Count records. -- 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (en:User:Dreaded Walrus)
Oh, and one more thing. I thought I should provide more links to the contributions of the people who have done almost nothing other than inserting those links (rather than just the four above), taken from the Link count pages:
[226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233]
There could be more, as I didn't look through all of the pages, but that should give the gist of it. -- 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (en:User:Dreaded Walrus)
Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The URL blacklist is for (a) the malicious (i.e. spammers) and (b) the incompetent or negligent (i.e. sites abusable and abused by spammers). As I understand it, they're in group (b) rather than group (a). If that's the case, and they've plugged the hole, is there a current reason to keep them on the list? - David Gerard 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC) and others


  • I am requesting full blacklisting of the falling domains:
  • I am requesting blacklisting of the indicated subdomains only:
      • contains many legitimate Islamic articles some linked to by established editors
      • while may be dodgy, only this user, lodhi, has spammed it to my knowledge and I don't think he's the domain owner
      • is a large web hosting service
  • I am not requesting blacklisting of the following but would like them added to either Shadowbot or COIbot:
      • not spammed to Wikipedia to my knowledge but low-quality
      • remainder of domain -- low quality SEO directory

Examples of spam -- see:

For more details: en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject (permanent link) --A. B. (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done did this one a few days ago and forgot to mark it done. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Persistent Spamming in de.wp, doesn't comply with de:WP:WEB. Our resident Spamfighter de:Benutzer:Hubertl removed over 50 Links on 10. Jan. 2007 ([234]) but like the mad killer in a bad horror movie, it keeps coming back to haunt us, often inserted by unique IPs ([235], [236], [237], [238] to name a few). Thank you, -- 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)(Michael)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (url shortener) and carblog spam

The owner of is using a url shortener at the same domain ( to spam a previously blacklisted website that the editor also owns: (original spam report). The url shortener has also been used to insert spamlinks to (original spam report) (a website similar to carandbike - unclear if it is owned by the same editor).

Examples of url shortner directing to blacklisted site:

diff, diff

Examples of directing to

  • (note that this editor inserted lysting links that directed to both autocrust and carandbike)
diff, [239]

More diffs and details are available in the reports linked above. Like carandbike, autocrust simply copies articles wholesale from other sources and republishes them with Adsense. Lysting appears to be a personal website, although the url shortener has been used to spam a blacklisted website owned by the same person. It may be that blacklisting the /url/ subdomain at the lysting url is enough, but I will leave that up to the discretion of others. I would suggest that blacklisting autocrust would be worthwhile. Nposs 14:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC),,,,

Cross-wiki spammer who has persisted using multiple IPs despite warnings; see en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#Ongoing spam, and this attempt to delete a record of spam warnings.[240] Domains:


For just a sample of the many link additions, see:

--A. B. (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please blacklist?
--A. B. (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC) on FR

Commercial spam for car hiring. Example :

IP :,,, ...

--Ironie 02:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC) linkspam

Extensive spam across 30+ articles on en.wikipedia. Here is a partial list of edits:

See en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject for details. (Permanent link)
--A. B. (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Two more important points I'd like to mention about the spamming. This individual has added 140 linkspams and has copied and pasted about 40 large blocks of duplicate text to multiple articles. Many of these duplicate blocks of text were added last summer and have propagated into a mess that was very difficult to clean up. Wikipedia's core integrity has been compromised by these actions. (Requestion 05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
Yes check.svg Done this guy is just creating :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Subsequent event -- see "The spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard" (Permanent link)
--A. B. (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP claims Workforall think tank repudiates domain and spamming

See this note posted on en:user:BozMo's talk page:

Public registration record:

owner-contact: P-MJG120
owner-organization: P. Vreymans
owner-fname: MFPH
owner-lname: Geurts
owner-city: Wingene
owner-zip: 8750
owner-country: BE

Public registration record:

Registrant Name:Eric Verhulst
Registrant Organization:Lancelot research nv
Registrant City:Leuven
Registrant Postal Code:be-b3010
Registrant Country:BE

--A. B. (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see this disclaimer posted on
WorkForAll as an independent thinktank maintains the website has nothing to do with
--A. B. (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC) spam

Blacklisting previously declined. Spammer is back with a new account adding link.[242]:

For more details, see: en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive --A. B. (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done still going eh? —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC) virus

Would someone with sufficient authority please blacklist because it attempts to infect computers with the virus, and other viruses with similar names. This site was in the external links section of the Wikipedia article Total station until I removed it today. --Gerry Ashton 00:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done never seen one of these requested, in any case, blacklisted. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC) spam

URL-Shortener to link to the already blacklisted [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256] and so on (this linkspam affected nearly all wp with Pac Man interwikis). The spammer also inserted links to other video game articles like Prince of Persia, Galaxian and some others. (e.g. [257], [258], [259]) However for Galaxian another URL-Shortener ( was used (e.g. [260], [261], [262].-- 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Now ist used as well. [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281]. spam is going on too.-- 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done All have been blacklisted, that kind of promotion is not acceptable. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass spamming on enwiki by,,, and potential other IPs. Aude 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you. --.anaconda 17:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this site needs a time off on the blacklist. It's being used as a shortcut to dodge this blacklisting [282].

He was warned about this three times [297], [298], [299], and now he's evoking WP:IAR [300] to validate his violations, and the links still remian there.

The only "inconvenience" is that this site is used as a source to cite quotations. But I think that should any specific link be needed, it should be requested for whitelisting. --Lemmos 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Gets spammed across several wikis. First additions found on en (, COIBot is now catching socks all over the world: user:COIBot/LinkReports/ All additions are by single-use accounts that add, for as far as I have seen, one single link. --Beetstra 08:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

URL redirection sites

See the discussion below at 700 URL redirection links to clean up (permanent link)


--A. B. (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Femto 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 15:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Please list new ones in a new section, thanks. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous blacklist requests:

  1. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/
  2. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/

Other references:

  1. en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#One more reason to avoid divorce ...
  2. en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb#The Christmas child support spammer:

Still at it despite previous warnings, blocks, bots, IP range blocks and UN sanctions.[301]

I expect this to continue until the domain is either blacklisted or Google discontinues its Adsense program.



--A. B. (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

18 URL shortener/redirect domains from

18 URL shortener/redirect domains similar to See Talk:Spam blacklist#30 redirect sites to cleanup and blacklist (Permanent link) below. Taken from


--A. B. (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. MaxSem 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

more porn spam domains

These have been spammed a minimum of 4 times in the last few days on en.wp by different IP's, a different domain to each article. (see for the discussion).

pre-formatted regex for convenience of the listing admin:


--Versageek 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thank you :-)

Referral Profiteering?

I found this edits:

I undid all those edits. It wasn't detected on most wikis. I think this is related to en:Google_Co-op. Should/can this be blocked? Mosca 08:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions as to what can be done. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


We need to do something. Mosca 08:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one Mosca 09:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, I've finally figured it out :) I'll blacklist google\{1,5}\/cse, that should do it.

10 more shortener/redirect domains from

URL shortener/redirect domains similar to See Talk:Spam blacklist#30 redirect sites to cleanup and blacklist (Permanent link) below. Taken from


--A. B. (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --.anaconda 01:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Additions: Not done

All redirects

I was going to suggest all sites spamvertised by, and the IP itself, but this is a better idea. Eagle 101 already banned it for 48 hrs, spam continues. e.g.: ,,, etc. All are redirects. I can't think of a legit link to a domain that would redirect here. This would perhaps require a bit of coding.


 unix% wget
           => `index.html'
Resolving done.
Connecting to[]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: [following]
           => `'
Resolving done.
Connecting to[]:80... ^C 

Oh, and has a LONG but dated list of blacklist-worthy domains. Yes, the page is not the up-to-date one and yes it's from the evil empire. --Elvey 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) itself is not blacklisted, why all the redirects? Lets just keep blocking that one IP. Looks like it is a static one anyway. Eagle 101 19:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
See for the list of domains this spammer is selling. I suggest just blocking them all. They're parked with sedoparking to get some revenue while parked but this spammer's niche in the spam chain is not driving traffic to sedoparking ads but rather building up the domains' traffic so he can sell them. If you look at this Google search, you'll find some domains not on this list; presumably he's sold them recently. He probably hasn't heard of the nofollow implementation. --A. B. (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
All the domains are also listed at en:User talk:‎ now. --A. B. (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, A. B. I took forever getting a list ready for here!
The full list of domains is: <now listed at en:User talk:‎ thanks to A. B. :)> I put them here for the simple reason that this page is static, while we don't have control over the other page. I will look into blacklisting all of these. Eagle 101 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems like it is from only one IP right now, lets wait a bit and see if they will stop (thanks to A. B.'s warning). Eagle 101 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - does not seem to be an ongoing problem with this one. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Spammed from multiple IPs many times. Was restored more then 10 times after being deleted. [302]

X mark.svg Not done - Try protecting the page first. That oftentimes stops the spam, as they appear to only want the link on one page. (Do a semi-protect for about 3 days). —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC) spam on Wikipedia

Spams multiple articles on en.wikipedia using multiple sockpuppets.[303][304][305][306][307][308] --A. B. (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done I added the link to shadowbot for now, as it appears to be an english wiki problem only. If shadowbot can't do it, then I will blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

History at en:Tau Gamma Phi was so convoluted with this attack site that it took me 6 edits to fix everything.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - If it goes back under attack, just protect the page. :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia review

Please blacklist * on the English wikipedia. Harassment and outing site, used to primarily 'out' and publically research the IRL identities of Wikipedia editors and administrators. Currently blocking and harassment policies on en. say that linking to attack/outing sites is forbidden... and as one of the lead attack sites on Wikipedians there is no reason it should ever be linkable anyway. Sites current existence and function endangers the real-world privacy and safety of all of us. DennyColt 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse DennyColt's request. Anything that can reasonably be done to protect the safety of its editors should be of paramount importance to the Foundation. Oh, and please blacklist Daniel Brandt's site as well, for the same reason. ElinorD 16:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support, per Denny's reasoning. Jayjg 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support from me too. I've requested this before. The site libels people, not to mention the thousands of childish and hurtful insults, the attempts to out people, and the support for stalkers. There's never a legitimate reason to link to it because it could never be regarded as a reliable source for anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree that WR should be on the blacklist. It is against Wikipedia-en policy to link to this site. The least disruptive way to enforce this policy is to use the blacklist. Any other method draws more attention to the site and the edit thus defeating the underlying purpose of the policy. FloNight 17:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a new guideline change made within the last day as I understand it.[309] I think it makes sense to block wikipediareview if that's new rule since I understand users adding those links will now potentially be blocked[310] for harassment (see en:WP:STALK. As a customary courtesy, I recommend first breaking the 227 links that exist across various projects:
Many of these links are on "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk" pages. Others are on user talk pages put there by someone else. Finally, blacklisting these links first will lock up the main French Wikipédia article. --A. B. (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can go through and start deactivating/breaking links in subpages and archives on en... and leave notes for top level pages, like user pages, like I had been (started already). For the other language WPs, should there just be a note in the edit to link/look back here? DennyColt 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Take look at how I handled a sensitive set of links referring to the holocaust.[311] This was just on the en.wikipedia pages and I think JzG had already deleted all the links in article space. He also had people on the other wikipedias do all their removals. In the case of talk pages, I always left a note explaining what I was doing and why -- not just an edit summary. In the case of user archives, I did not edit the archives but left a note suggesting they would need to do this before they tried to edit them. Take a look at the recent discussions here and in the March or Arpil archives to get a sense of the type of stuff I'm talking about.
For straightforward junk-link spam, I'll sometimes just go on as an anon on other wikipedias and delete a link, leaving a wikilink to this page and the appropriate section as my edit summary. But this one is likely to be a sensitive blacklisting with other wikipedias; insensitively handled, it may raise hackles elsewhere about "unilateralism", "censorship" or "en.wikipedia dominance", since the arbcom ruling only applies to en.wikipedia.--A. B. (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm very happy to remove them from French Wikipedia, where I have an account. I'd like to know, first, if an admin here is going to add the site to the blacklist, because I would probably explain in the edit summary that this link is about to be added to the blacklist at meta. I tried to help a week ago by removing and links from German Wikipedia, while there was a discussion here and at the English admin's noticeboard; but the German Wikipedians didn't seem to like it, and I wasn't able to explain in German. ElinorD 19:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, for en. Once its done we can just link back to here. DennyColt 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Solid oppose. Many of these links are cites. They've already as much as said that the link blanking that has already taken place is grounds for a lawsuit. You would have to go back around and remove the content-- including in history-- in order to really fix this issue. And for what? Link blanking of this sort is just going to enable them to reply, utterly correctly, that your problem is that you cannot stand criticism. Mangoe 04:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt that they would make that reply, Mangoe, but I'm sorry to see that you think the reply would "utterly correct". Surely you can see that it's one thing to criticise, and quite another thing to expose people to the danger of real-life stalking, phonecalls to employers, etc., by posting their personal details. I really hope the administrators at meta will care enough about the security of their volunteers to put that consideration before all others. ElinorD 08:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support This site serves as a host to those out to slander valuable members of the community and also to those harrassing or stalking members. For instance, a friend of mine, who is a female administrator at the english WP became the victim of a stalker with threats to her family, phonecalls to her workplace. The stalker was banned from en.WP but was gladly accepted at WPreview. Another valuable editor was harrassed into retiring from WP alltogether, after some members of WPreview revealed his family details and send letters to his superiors in his job. Unfortunately we cannot stop these activities but at least we should not support their endeavours.- Oh, and of course the line should be blacklisted from all Wikipedias and related projects, not just from the English one. Str1977 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for what it's worth - any user on enWP who links this site will almost certainly be blocked or banned immediately, and there is no conceivable article for which wikipediareview could be considered a reliable source. Nothing to lose and everything to gain form blacklisting. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How is this site being spammed? If this is a single-project concern and the site is not being spammed, it does not belong on the spam blacklist. If it is being used legitimately on other projects, then should revert and block editors who include the link instead of having it blacklisted here. Please note that this is the spam blacklist, not the unwanted site blacklist as some editors may think it is. It is not used only on Wikimedia wikis but is generally copied to other sites that utilize the Spamblacklist extension. Therefore, unless evidence can be presented that the site is actively being spammed, it should not be added to the blacklist. Naconkantari 22:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think it should matter what the list is called; I think what matters is what it can be used for, and it is used for making links to inappropriate sites, be they spam or attack, incapable of being made. It's a helpful function, so we should use it whenever we can. Picaroon 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    It matters what the list is called. This list is specifically designed to combat widespread spam. It is not to be used for selectively blocking sites that may be inappropriate on single wikis. This list is not used just for Wikimedia wikis. It is not designed to block based on disputes. It is solely for reducing spam, which the above editors have not shown this site has done. I will strongly urge that this site be not included on the blacklist as it does not meet the definition of spam. If you want the site blacklisted, I'd recommend that you start a poll to change the scope of the blacklist. Naconkantari 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support blacklisting, it's an attack site and linking to it is blockable. Lets not give people the chance to be blocked. Picaroon 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done as this is an issue with only one wiki's community wanting this link gone, I don't see a need to blacklist this across all wikis. What you guys can do is request en:User:Shadow1 add this link to en:User:Shadowbot. Regards —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What good will this do eagles?
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawenforcer (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


The URL is being spammed in various articles across various languages. Just a guess but with all the usernames its probably someone editing from an open proxy. Diffs are as follows:

[312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320], [321], [322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328], [329], [330], [331], [332], [333], [334], [335] [336], [337], [338], [339], [340] [341], [342], [343]---Juvisaid 21:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is another "Joe Job" from Barber, this site is wrestling related unsurprisingly. 22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Its confirmed to be part of the joe job vie checkuser. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Not done

Shock site, used in vandalism (example). The primary domain is, but others, such as, redirect to it, so anything with "meatspin" in the URL should probably be blacklisted. I could dig up more examples if you want, but I can't think of any legitimate reason to link to the site. --Slowking Man 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of this link being spammed into Wikipedia? Are there more then one IP range currently doing this? Or, any evidence of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a spam site (ad-mungous, bought by someone deliberately to exploit its viral propagation), and there has been endless argumentation about it on the talk of en:Shock site. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Has the argumentation reached consensus? What about other wikis? Eagle 101 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"" is a direct link to meatspin, just so you know.-- 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It belongs on the en:Shock site article, and cannot be blacklisted because it needs to be on that article. 03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not done. The spam blacklist is intended neither to resolve content disputes nor enforce censorship of inappropriate content. It should only be used to counter widespread, disruptive or malicious placement of links where administrator tools are insufficient to easily contain it. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, Meatspin already has several redirects and they are promising a new one every month.-- 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done (so bot will archive this... ) —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See this link search: en, de, es, loads of others. The /article links are generally OK, but the /product, /book and /painting ones are straight sales pages. I propose we blacklist /products, /books, /paintings. Or blacklist the whole site and we'll find better, non-commercial sources for the other data. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok JzG, looks like we have the following counts of links on 15 wikis:
Total count: 168 en: 133 de: 5 ja: 0 fr: 1 pl: 0 it: 10 nl: 1 es: 5 pt: 7 zh: 1 ru: 0 fi: 1 no: 4 he: 0 sco: 0
Is there an agreement to have this site removed on the following wikis? I would worry about getting agreement from the english, and Italian wiki before moving on with your idea. Eagle 101 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how to contact it: - I will find their amdin noticeboard. 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
How are things going with this? —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done per inactivity. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Spammed from a few IPs within the same subnet (see en:Special:Contributions/ - blocked on nl:wp, en:Special:Contributions/, en:Special:Contributions/ Diffs: [344] [345] [346] [347] [348] Sandox 07:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Have we tried blocking the IP range? (a short time can often discourage them). Eagle 101 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
We need to block the ips as this sites has some great content can use.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done seems to be resolved by block, if it is not, please make a new request. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

An annon user corrupts existing external links with this one. For instance, replacing "CAUCE" -- an established anti-spam organization. For example [349] and [350] --Mdwyer 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done I would suggest attempting to block the IP first, since it is on the English Wikipedia, I will consider suggesting this to be added to User:Shadowbot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
User comes from various IPs in netblock. Unable to block by IP. I have requested an add to Shadowbot. Thank you! -- 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC) - the site is currently 404 but hosts copies of the Watchtower and other Jehovah's Witnesses publications, without any distinction between those that are in copyright and those that are not. Since copyright goes for a minimum of 50 years from the death of the author, a large number even from the 1920s may contain material still under copyright. We have had at least one OTRS complaint, ticket 2007021310020955, complaining about links to copyright material on that site. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There are 287 of these links on en.wikipedia. I suggest maybe leaving a note at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses about the issue. I'm not sure who's going to delete these links; I suspect some deletions may be controversial, especially given that these are pages on religion.--A. B. (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a long blog entry from April 2004 about the history of this site:
The homepage consists of one sentence: "Closed for maintenance"'s archives for redirect to
--A. B. (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I just spotchecked one of the links -- notwithstanding the note on the homepage, the link worked (although it loaded at what felt like 14k modem speeds):
    • Note: this is a 1968 publication still under copyright
--A. B. (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that it's under a DMCA takedown notice, and it's a dissenter's website being used as reference without explicitly stating that, I think it should be gone. Just zis Guy, you know? 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Has at least the english wikipedia been notified of this? en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. Its not really spam, but yeah it seems to me to be suspect, but this is something that can be fixed just by talking things through and (possibly) removing the links. We have to remember that this list is not only for the english wiki. Eagle 101 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I just left a note:
I suggest someone review it and clarify anything I may have misinterpreted. --A. B. (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of this? —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Definitely needs to go as a prolific violator of copyright (validated; not all are copyvios but it is clear they don't care), not sure whether it's counted as spam, though. Depends if you want ot be legalistic, I guess. Your call. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - unless we continue to have issues, that can't be dealt with by normal admin tools, with this site. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Shock site. Example. --Slowking Man 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I need to ask this, do we have a standard to blacklist ever shocksite that we come across. As far as I have been thinking, I would just treat it as normal vandalism, unless we are getting multiple IPs or multiple wikis. I'm not sure though on what is appropriate for this, and I invite others to please comment. Thanks. Eagle 101 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done - at least till we have a standard of blacklisting every shock site. Now if this is getting spammed by multiple IP/user accounts that cannot be dealt with reasonably by normal admin tools then please re-post. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This domain have a lot of subpages redirecting to "" already blocked. See:

Note: don't block "" That domain is for homepages of netcabo ISP clients. Block only "" Mosca 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done site does not even list anything anymore. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC),,

Multiple IP are adding this links to french wikipédia (like here [351]). Is that possible to blacklist it? Thanks. -- 08:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you show some examples of spamming from these domains. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that there is a conflict between two french Wikipedia contributors about external links in the article "Pêche à la mouche". Resolution is in progress. Some persons think that should be allowed in the article. 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, if this is a real spam issue please demonstrate multiple additions from multiple IP/users that cannot be reasonably dealt with by normal admin tools. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This website is frequently added to articles like "Schriftzeichen", "Kanji" and others and is obviously optimised for google & partners without providing any content. --Chrislb 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done (for now) Please show me evidence of spamming. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User was warned recently for promoting his own site. Changed username to make it appear he wasn't associated with this site, then went on to add links to his site to over 20 wiki entries. See his revision history and recent warnings

X mark.svg Not done - in a way, I"ve added this link to User:Shadowbot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yiddish website exposes privacy of user

They expose a name that has been erased form Yiddish wiki, by Danny and allot of stewards and sysops before, but unfortunately Google still has it up, and they link to expose privacy that they believe it can intimidate a user.[] please block access to that sight from wikis thanks--יודל 23:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - pending some evidence - Is it currently getting spammed? If normal admin tools (ie, block users that try to "expose" other users) don't work then I'll consider blacklisting. If thats the case, can you at least show me some evidence? Thanks. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OK was removed from the wiki, will wait to see if somebody puts it back. thanks--יודל 12:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This job web site has been extensively spammed to the English Wikipedia [352] [353] [354]; [355] (started on a smaller scale 30 March) Notinasnaid 11:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The ips are very similar, (try a small rangeblock?) but in any case I will stick this on en:User:shadowbot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done looks like shadowbot did the job :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A porn site/gallery. - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Thx. Valrith 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Just request an admin to semiprotect the page. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

spam[356][357][358][359][360][361][362][363][364][365][366][367][368][369][370][371][372][373][374][375]--Fromm 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done it seems to be from the same IP, so I would suggest just blocking it. :) If there are more IPs please let me know. —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have recently found and removed a lot of links to, an "alternative" energy (read: energy from water) website. It is being re-linked by a number of users of varying degrees of well-meaning, including [376], [377], [378]. The main problem is its linking to articles on mainstream coneptes, notably coal, where they are promoting a "oil from coal - free!" essay: [379] on enWP, [380] on itWP (looks to have been copied and pasted form the same spam on enWP). There are also links on frWP, deWP and other projects, some seem to have been the result of copying and pasting from enWP. The links are pretty blatant POV, and they are being reindserted by fringe science supporters. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we getting spammed by it, or is this more of a content dispute. (is it the same user or person maliciously spamming us?) I don't mind blocking, but would a little chat with the editors help? —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of anons in the history adding it, and at least two current editors, and it's on several projects. It's more astroturfing than spamming, but it is current. Just zis Guy, you know? 07:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this still a problem or has it died down? —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Still being inserted, at least one of the editors involved is currently at ArbCom regarding inappropriate promotion of paranormal topics (and using this site as a source, which he does, falls under that category). 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's another example from deWP: [381] - note that this is a US patent, so would be available from the USPTO instead of the kook website, and one from frWP [382] where iot has been included in fr:Turbine de Tesla, corresponding to en:Tesla turbine, a geniune historic engineering concept. Note the link summary: "from [ Rex Research], which promotes "suppressed/dormant/emerging science, inventions, technologies, experiments""; not at all the kind of source we need in mainstream topics, and the link is clearly promoting the site not offering additional supporting data. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Right, but is it actively getting spammed? Especially while the english wiki arbcom is debating this issue (again, paranomal science seems to be a constant :P ). I think we should wait. If someone goes on a massive spam inserting spree, then I'll blacklist it. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is actively being reinserted. Ah well, I will continue actively uninserting it... Just zis Guy, you know? 19:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
JzG sorry but as this looks like a content dispute, with user behavior problems I'd rather wait till I hear something from the arbcom. At least its not getting added to promote the site. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC) persistent spamming on Wikipedia:didgeridoo

On Wikipedia:didgeridoo different IP addresses (currently, but also e.g. and user Outbackbazza keep adding adding, also removing templates, replacing other links with its own, ignoring discussions. Communication is impossible. Can someone add this site to the blacklist? See also Wikipedia:Didgeridoo (history) Didgeweb 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done I just semi-protected the page, if problems persist, report again. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Here I am again:
  • 16:26, 30 April 2007 Didjstore (Talk | contribs) (15,329 bytes) (→External links)
  • 18:00, 30 April 2007 Didjstore (Talk | contribs) (15,329 bytes) (→External links)
In other words, it seems to persist... Didgeweb 18:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting help with a specific IP who continues to insert a website that violates en:WP:SPAM. The site is a community of users dedicated to the Chevrolet TrailBlazer and GMC Envoy. The site requires registration to view anything beyond the front page. Further investigation insists that the site is just a collection of original research from its many users therefore cannot be referenced into Wikipedia or it would violate en:WP:NOR. I have requested the link not be re-added to the article en:Chevrolet TrailBlazer on its talk page. The user en:User: insists it should be added as some of the article was referenced from that site. I asked him to provide direct links to the information that was refereneced and informed him that it may not be used since it would contain original research. He will not comply with that request nor will he stop adding the link back into the article. I do not want to get into an edit war with this user, but in my opinion the site he has listed is not usable on the Wikipedia project. Thanks, 02:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC) (en:User:HumanZoom)

I made all the above links and it checked on the preview. When I hit submit, it is linkless. I am new to Wikimedia, so if I'm doing something wrong, I'm sorry. Thanks, 02:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done just request protection here. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This site has been constantly removed and added, reverted back and forth, for quite some time now on the English Wikipedia. While only 3 users, (2 users and 1 IP, though one user and the IP are sockpuppets by one main user, Jelly Jiggler) it's caused one hell of an edit war for a few months now. He fails to understand that it is spam and fan sites are not really reliable external links (just because it has avatars, chatrooms, forums, fanfiction, fan art, and YouTube links that user feels it is "informational"). I'm determined to stop that user from putting it up again. Examples:

  1. User:Jelly Jiggler "pupper master" - [383] [384] [385] [386] [387] [388] [389]
  2. As User:Don_Patch5000 "sock puppet" (as seen on Jelly Jiggler's and this one's userpage) - [390] [391] [392] [393] [394] [395] [396]
  3. Now as an IP User: - [397] [398] [399] [400] [401] [402] [403] [404] [405]

And that's about it. Pardon my stupidity, but I've never done this before, so should I link to my talk page on the english wikipedia and confirm it's me over there (like the POTY thing)? For now, I'll only link to my talk page... Thank you all very much for your time. User talk:Tohru Honda13 22:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we still having problems with this one? —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done no reply... I don't know if there is a need to blacklist if it is not ongoing. —— Eagle101 Need help? 08:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC) is a URL-shortener. --Beetstra 10:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious. It seems to be on the blacklist .. but .. --Beetstra 11:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
URLs in <ref> tags seem to be ignored. I opened a bug. --.anaconda 16:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done - as in no blacklisting has been done (archive this quickly) —— Eagle101 Need help?

Removals: Done was the first site on the internet to offer interactive help to the bereaved in 1995. It also started the first online memorial page and continues to this day to be a free service. You can see the "Place to Honor Grief" here "honor.html" and the continuing online support for the bereaved here "/forums" Sadly last fall the site was hacked and used as a repository for thousands of spam urls that were then linked to spam emails. The spammers also placed inconspicuous links to their sites on very popular pages of the site in order to gain ratings with search engines. Once things were discovered the damage was done. I am guessing that the blacklisting here is related to that mess and I hope that the good folks of Wiki will see that the site has now been relocated and secured and will accept a link. I am thinking that this also must be related to the google listing for the site which has dropped like a rock. Any help in pointing me towards the listkeepers of blacklisted sites would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Yes check.svg Done, it was spammed back in november, and the discription you give matches the information that I see. (plus a few checks I did with whois), so consider this off the blacklist. If spamming continues it will end back up on this list though. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Do you have any ideas about other blacklists I might check related to the google ranking?
No clue. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Not done.

Obsessed with wrestling provides very good information and has many links in the wrestling section of wikipedia. Although not always the best source it does provide enough information and another alternative source. I am not sure why it was blacklisted, but I feel the site is more than good enough to not be blacklisted. Govvy 09:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Often a good resource and certainly not spam.

If I remember correctly, this website spammed the living shit out of en.wikipedia, hundreds and hundreds of links in very small amounts of time. JoeSmack 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That was ONE user, who was promoting his columns at the site. The webmaster of OWW has since removed those columns after the user lied about spamming Wikipedia. TJ Spyke 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that things have changed? We blacklisted in response to constant spam, and it will stay on the blacklist until we are sure the spam issues are gone. Our counter spam folks have enough problems without having to re-chase down spammers again :). Eagle 101 06:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing has changed, except he needs to use to link to his columns now. 01:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not removed, the problem has not been resolved. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ya, he just went right back to spamming it as soon as it was unblacklisted. (see the diffs the guy gave above).
Ps - what do you mean, "not removed?" It's already been removed. ==Desperadocujo 05:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, who is spamming it? Show me diffs. Eagle 101 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I think its probably the same guy as before
== Desperadocujo 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Its dealt with I think, this is still not blacklisted. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The current pattern (\bobsessedwithwrestling\.com\/columns\/jonathanbarber) will only affect that particular column. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:04:58, 04 April 2007 (UTC)
Which has in any case been deleted by the site admins, who I think are every bit as sick of this vainglorious idiot as we are. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the official website of the second largest wrestling organization in North America, and likely the world (I can't think of any European ones that are bigger, and can think of only 2 or 3 Japanese ones that could be bigger). The site is used in dozens, if not hundreds of articles at WP (TNA PPV articles, TNA wrestler articles, wrestling match articles, etc.) To have their own official site blacklisted is ludicrous. What this is saying is that ANY site can get banned if it's spammed enough (even something like or I would love to see the reaction if this BS happened to, getting blacklisted because some idiots spammed it. TJ Spyke 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sad to say, but TJ Spyke is right, how a major website could be blacklisted is beyond me also. stats for Govvy 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, see User:COIBot/LinkReports/ (en:Joe job]]?) --Beetstra 16:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done actually removed about 3 days ago. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The link above is blacklisted for no reason I readily understand. It is contained in de:Zweites Vatikanisches Konzil (see en:Second Vatican Council for a translation, no typical spammer target, I suppose) for a while now, the site appears quite relevant and on-topic to me at first sight. I wonder how it got blocked in the first place. -- 20:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done It was an invalid regex. It is now fixed. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in the blacklist please? I'm no longer able to edit my user page because of this! --Rebroad 11:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done It was an invalid regex. Sorry for the problems. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this blacklisted? Can it not at the very least be allowed on en:Harry Smith (wrestler) (which is presumably the only page that would link to it seeing as it's the subject's personal website)? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 00:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done It was some faulty regex. Though I am going to say the popup ads on that site are horrible. That froze up my browser for a good 15 seconds it was loading in a bunch of junk. Feel free to use it, but I certainly won't look at that one again. :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahh thanks for that. *cough*useFirefox*cough* ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 07:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I do use firefox along with Gentoo_Linux :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

For en:World Championship Wrestling article. Illustrative citation to reference the page. This link was fine 5 minutes ago. Basically, I cannot make one simple edit to correct the reflist from being completely messed up unless I go through it and hack out references that are now suddenly and inexplicably blacklisted. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see this Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04/ before removing, thanks! --Beetstra 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Mmm something is messed up here... let me try to untangle this :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Not good at all... see this. Its working here on meta, but I'm getting something wrong on en. As far as I know meta does not have a whitelist, which makes this even stranger. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, from testing on en, if you put nowiki around this link, it will save. (on en). See this. I'm going to see if a regex is off or something, but this *should* not be working on meta and failing to work on en. Its just plain odd. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yey! I found the problem, let me figure out how to fix the regex. It is one of the more complicated regex that I used to stop Barber from continuing his problems. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done pending the blacklist propagating correctly, this *should* work. If it does not for some reason, and I don't notice, just let me know below this post. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See above (for en:World Championship Wrestling article) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see this Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04/ before removing, thanks! --Beetstra 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Not on blacklist. --Beetstra 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It's still flagging up as blacklisted. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - byproduct of this problem should be fixed, if there are problems mention them in this section below my last post. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See above (for en:World Championship Wrestling article) plus this has numerous links in articles ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see this Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04/ before removing, thanks! --Beetstra 07:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Not on blacklist. --Beetstra 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It's still flagging up as blacklisted. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
not done (yet) not on the blacklist in the first place, see this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Modify what I just said, there is something odd afoot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - byproduct of this problem should be fixed, if there are problems mention them in this section below my last post. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Done (limited regex).

Please remove this domain from the blacklist! I don't see the point why this harmless site should be regarded as spam. I personally find it the most important reference in things concerning constructed languages. --primordial 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the reason why this was added to the blacklist. If it is useful, I would suggest requesting whitelisting of a particular page of that website (whatever page it is that you need). Eagle 101 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the role is playing here. Only because some troll in fr:wp is spamming about a languague called 'latin moderne', everyone has to 'renounce' the information given on this site? in de:wp we have a portal about conlangs. in the section 'weblinks', the first one is -- thus making it impossible to edit the entire page. --primordial 14:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ('user:primordial' on de:wp)
Mmmm... let me look into this... though a potential solution for now would be to whitelist it on de... Again give me a few hours to a day. Eagle 101 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, lets at least notify the French that we are considering taking this link off the blacklist, as it was them that took the primary brunt of the spam. Eagle 101 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. But as far as I can see, the only object of spamming is the subsite Where can I ask the french to recall their request for blacklisting, or is this an admin issue? --primordial 08:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ?? --primordial 09:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend not removing this site from the blacklist due to the amount of evidence presented here Naconkantari 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Which evidence?! Have you looked through this at all? Give me only one reference where is used for spamming except its subsite "Modern Latin"! I just can't understand why this incidence can block a site for more than three weeks now. Please do something, or give me a hint what to do, for this issue is sooner or later getting annoying. --primordial 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I failed to show patience, you guys sure have a lot of resentment about people like me. Please answer me just one question: Would it be possible to reduce the blacklisting to the subdomain ""? --Primordial 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is possible, let me think on it, and please do realize that I am a volunteer, and we are quite busy at this page, and to be honest your reply has slipped by our notice (the one you gave on the 13th). Eagle 101 07:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Primordial. Please remove this domain from the blacklist! Hill

I think I've found some other discussions on this.
Let me read through them. There might be a reason behind this after all. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we do have a reason for the blacklist, looks like it was a major problem on a few other wikis. See here. I'm going to recommend that you request whitelisting of this site. (do tell them when you request why its on the blacklist). Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

there is absolutly NO REASON to blacklist this site...its about constructed languages such as the WORKING world language Esperanto it has discussions on creating languages, designing word or letter characters, usage and many other interesting things about language in general. one should REALLY look at the CORE link provided to see if it is in fact a spam site...and not becuase a group of people reference it...wally -- 05:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a reason to blacklist, if it has been spammed, as the links I gave show. Also do note that capital letters are not making a case. :) Show me how the site is constructive, and is worth taking volunteers time to watch that it is not re-spammed. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
hmm so dont look at the capitals letters look at the rest on creating languages, you've never heard of constructed lanuages like esperanto? purusing the first page of the site speaks for itself that its not porn, not MLM or commerical or extreme in any sense... :( it sounds like the definition of spam your using is rather broad... what do you mean re-spammed? cannot more then one person refernce it? wally-- 19:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
By re-spammed I mean the same spammers who originally inserted the link. Now if there are legit uses of this site, please request local whitelisting. All you have to give them (for the english wiki) is the deeplink ( and the article that you want to use it in, and why it meets all of wikipedia's guidelines and policies. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. It seems that only the 'Modern Latin' article was spammed, so I limited the regex to that particular article with allowance for MediaWiki's dual URL formats (\blangmaker\.com.*Modern_Latin). —{admin} Pathoschild 04:04:39, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (so the bot will archive this). —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did this site get blacklisted? There has only been a short description of the medrapid research project in wikipedia. Is wikimedia against research projects accessible for free?

Ok, the admin who originally added this does not seem to be around anymore, but a bit of digging in the archives yeilds this. It looks like the german wikipedia got spammed with that link multiple times by multiple IPs. Minding the logical fallacy above (no we are not against research projects), I will think about taking this off, give me a few days. In the meantime you can show me where it might be useful to have this site? I welcome some comments from any passerby. Thanks. Eagle 101 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done if this gets spammed, it will be re-added. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the official site of PPStream, a popular P2P streaming video software. I have no idea why it's included in the blacklist. -- scchiang

That article has already been deleted once. see this. Are we even sure that the community wants that article? Eagle 101 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done article seems to be kept, similar articles on other wikis, will be re-added if there are legit spam issues. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The site was blacklisted after a dynamic ip was adding links to English language content on the German wikipedia of a mirror site ( See [407] and [408]]. There may have been spamming of the mirror site which seems to belong to a local German Chabad center. However the main site which is the German language version of, should not be blacklisted as it does not contain any English content and regarding the relevant content issue, the diff provided as the reason to blacklist the site [409] was actually relevant content which contained much info not in the current article. Obviously if there are users who add links inappropriately, they should be reverted, however this does not seem to be the case with this particular domain which does have much relevant use on the German wikipedia. --PinchasC 13:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - after some talk on IRC with PinchasC, I figured out that this is not the same domain as the spammed domain. In any case spam from this domain will cause it to return to this list. —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a site providing a service of free forums in Russia. Here's an example of completely legitimate one: usd . mybb . ru Article Captcha Exchange Server. -- 19:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Honging: I hope I'm doing this correctly, please let me know if I am not). I noticed is on the sbl, and I'm hoping to get it off. I did an archive search and noticed the request for it was at: [410]

Tabulas is a free hosting service (with over 100,000 blogs), so I know that there probably was a spam link on that wiki (although it does not seem to show that oldid anymore). However, I'm pretty aggressive with shutting down spam blogs (any that are reported to me are usually shut down within 12 hours). Please let me know what I can do to get removed from this blacklist, thanks.

Yes check.svg Done if there are more problems with spam, this will end back up on the blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

I’m the director of the bonsai School of Menorca, I was told by my webmaster that was blacklisted in Wikipedia, it seems that we have something called Cross-wiki , I don’t know who did that, probably one of our students. We are one of the oldest Bonsai Schools in Europe and we don’t want to be in any type of blacklist. I don’t know the way to remove the links and get our domain whitelisted.

Thanks for your attention

I am a bit on the fence with this one, on one hand we did get whacked with this about a month ago (here), but on the other hand this site may have some good sources, not any that I've personally found though. Eagle 101 05:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed; I don't see any indication that it was more than a passing spammer, so it's likely they moved on by now. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:29:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Done (not blacklisted)

This has pretty recently been blacklisted. The site itself is highly respectable, and non-commercial; a joint site for the European National Collections of Rare Books, from the British Library on. Each library selects a few items in a standard formula (including images), & maintains it's own site. Many libraries are adding their full catalogues (see the about us page). Funded by the European Union, this replaces a previous gateway. It is likely to become a major scholarly rescource, and is already one of some significance.

The site has been added to many articles on en:Wiki rather crudely - mostly in 2005 by en User:CristianChirita - in fact he started new articles by just cutting and pasting the details table from the site. I have cleaned some of these up. All the new articles were certainly notable - most of the existing featured content, at only 4 items per country, will be so by definition. Many of the treasures from the smaller countries are not available online otherwise - of course the big Western countries have their own bigger sites.

This site should be whitelisted. Any "spamming" must, I think be well-intentioned, and usually valid. Needed links to images are being removed. Please remove from list, Thanks. 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (Johnbod on en). PS This is a VERY hard page to find. Took me 20 minutes on Wikimedia. Is this deliberate? If not some mention of Spam on the main page would be an improvement.

Please read what spam is. Thanks. Eagle 101 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, done that (once again). Now please will you explain how that relates to this site? I have only ever seen fewer than ten links to it on en Wiki, which is perfectly legitimate for an official site covering twenty-whatever nations in the EU. How many links does WP have to the Library of Congress? Did you actually read what I wrote above? 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
For as far as I know is the site not blacklisted on meta, but 'theeuropeanlibrary\.org' is blacklisted under en:user:shadowbot on en.wikipedia. As an explanation: the site does not comply with WP:EL (it is not accesible from all browsers, the site does not work in e.g. Opera), and was spammed (the definition of spam on en.wikipedia does not judge the contents of the site, just the way they are added) by several accounts connected to the a.o. en:Dutch Royal Library (which have a conflict of interest). These additions have been cleaned, indeed resulting in only about 10 occurances being left on the site.
When the site works with all browsers the site would indeed be a good and notable site, and would comply when used as a reference, i.e. when not being spammed to external links sections, or added by users with a conflict of interest. Hope this explains. --Beetstra 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
To make editing here even less accessible, the edit link at right is not coordinated with this section of text: open "edit" two sections down! so, how could blacklisting be defended for the shared site of the EU's national libraries? The blacklisting process is whimsical, open to any "administrator" who elects to add a site, which is then methodically deleted throughout Wikipedia by followers who have not reviewed the material. A serious abuse, among many. 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (User:Wetman).
Beetstra, thanks, that is helpful. i will follow up on en 04:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Re Wetman: The blacklisting was performed on en.wikipedia only after discussion with several people, and we all have this site on our monitor now. We are not happy with this site being blackisted, but the current situation (spamming under a conflict of interest) needed to be addressed. I have explained the reason why it was blacklisted and have repeatedly tried to explain the situation to the accounts in question. Only links were removed that were added by the spammers (which ALL have a conflict of interest). I did not even remove all of their links, I removed the links that were added by them and only had a tangential link to the subject they were added to, and/or were they were added to the external link sections. --Beetstra 09:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I must say I first became aware of the issue when I could not edit a page on an MS (I've now forgotten which) without removing the link to the only available picture of that MS. My recollection is that this had been added in 2005, but I might be wrong. 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add, the first time I encountered the link, I actually looked where it went. That stalled my browser (Opera), which is not supported by the site (I could not even use my back-button to get back to the wikipedia), see here. The addition was in the external link section, where en:WP:EL fully applies (though I would consider it also suitable for external links in the text, and even in the references), and that guideline states that sites should accessible for all/most browsers. In that light we could remove all external links to this site (yesterday I did have the same trouble with the homepage of theeuropeanlibrary). The site is new, and it might become a good information site, but for now, it does not comply with wikipedia rules (and it gets spammed under a COI). I am sorry. --Beetstra 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed discussion, not blacklisted. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:46:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 2nd time is an information web site concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is the most comprehensive web site on Parkinson's Disease - far more comprehensive than the Wikipedia article. Consequently, it appears on all of the Parkinson's Disease web sites including National Parkinson's Disease organisations and Parkinson's Disease patient forums.

1. was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006.

2. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject.

3. There is not even one advert on the entire web site.

4. According to Wikipedia's definition of spam, it did not fulfill any of the definitions of spam. SeeWikipedia spam.

5. Rather than the site being checked to see if it constituted spam, which it didn't, it's maintenance on the blacklist was due to merely asking the opinion of somebody who described himself as a minor editor, who had a personal grievance against the editor. When asked his opinion of, he confused the issue by responding instead about a different web site.

There are no grounds for maintaining on the spam blacklist because it plainly does not fulfill the definition of spam. Nobody has been able to contradict that fact. --XX7 22:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we just did this once above. If you can get agreement to add this link to that article, I will take it off of the blacklist, though I think that the whitelist is better suited for this. P.S. I'm sure I can find a similar source elsewhere as well :) Eagle 101 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The request has already also gone on to the Whitelist. If approval for removing from the blacklist is needed on a particular article then any two editors on any article could unreasonably ensure without any reason whatsover that any article is blacklisted and remain that way. There are half a dozen related articles. So that would mean approaching editors of half a dozen articles with a web site that was blacklisted - a bit like somebody trying to get a job who first has to admit he's a criminal even though he's committed no crime. The decision should be with the Administrator of the SPAM blacklist based on facts and reasoning, rather than the arbitrary decision of what could be two anonymous editors. Whether or not it is added to any particular article after it is removed from the SPAM blacklist (where it clearly should never have been) is a later separate matter. If editors then object to its inclusion then so be it, as that would then be up to them, as it is on any Wikipedia article. If you are sure that you can find a similar source elsewhere that covers all of the content of ALL the pages, I challenge you or anyone else to do so, as I know in advance that you could not even come close. --XX7 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend not removing this site as it has clearly been used for spam. Naconkantari 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
What you have just written is ridiculous. You bring this discussion process on the spam blacklist in to contempt by your continuous failure, not only with this site, but all sites, to come to conclusions without there being any evidence to support you. You have provided no evidence at all in support of what you have written. "Clearly spam" is utter utter nonsense. The web site was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia relevant article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes. It contains not a single advert, it is entirely non-commercial, and it does not promote anything. I have already requested elsewhere that you no longer are able to have anything to do with the spam blacklist because your attitude to what are supposed to be reasoned and factual assessments is instead one of arrogance and a complete disregard for consistency, reasoning and facts. --XX7 09:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Show me that other editors want it by linking to a discussion on the english wiki, talking about this link, preferably on the talk page of one of the articles that you want to add this site. Eagle 101 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have followed your previous suggestion by taking it over to the whitelist, where it has started to be discussed and has so far gained a favourable response. I will leave it there for a while. --XX7 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Eagle 101 wrote on the whitelist that this web site would be removed from the blacklist in a few days. That was weeks ago. This is dragging on endlessly, with nothing being done about it. Surely it is now time to remove the site from the blacklist, where it should never have been, so that this issue can be completely removed from both the whitelist and blacklist discussions. --XX7 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sorry en:WP:WHITELIST is not on my watchlist, I just go there whenever I feel like it... as most of the items there I can't do much about, and with 1,100 some admins it ought to be in better shape then it is in :P In any case this is now off the blacklist, but please do keep in mind, any persistent spamming will result in it getting re-added. (there was a problem with it on another wiki... though I really could not tell) —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Eagle. I'll add a note to the Whitelist discussion that the matter has been resolved here. --XX7 13:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This website is one of the most important in my area and has a lot of historical archives from the past 10 years. I don't even know why I'm blacklisted! It is rather unfair to have to justify myself for being blacklisted for no apparent reason. Please remove my website from the blacklist.

It's not up to me, but out of curiosity, what is cosplay ? --XX7 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

People dressed like weird anime characters pretending to be some manga superhero --Jollyroger 08:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


When I first saw this site I thought that it was very informative, although I wasn't sure what it was informative about because I didn't know what cosplay was. Now that other editors have kindly informed me about what cosplay is, it seems a bit odd, but then so are a lot of things. However, how it can possibly be on the blacklist is baffling. It provides detailed information about cosplay events, and does not have any adverts that I can find. For those people interested it would be a useful site. It's not up to me as I am not an Administrator here, but it really should be removed from the blacklist. It has no reason at all being there. --XX7 11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) is why it is on the spam blacklist. I will think about if taking it off if a good idea or not. Comments are welcome, but please realize that this is not a vote, so please don't use bold words infront of your comments. Thanks. Eagle 101 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can a web site not be added to different language Wikipedias ? What if for example, there was an article on The White House on numerous Wikipedias. Could the White House web site not be added to all of the different language Wikipedias rather than just English Wikipedia ? Regarding I doubt if there is any better in other languages, so it seems reasonable that they add the web site to different language Wikipedias. --XX7 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its reasonable to a point, but after you spam it to multiple languages like here, we start to have problems. One it is very hard to track this activity, as most users tend to stay to their home wikis. If the site is in only one langauge I fail to see the benifit of adding this link to multiple wikimedia sites. This is a case where the site benefits more then wikimedia does. I'm willing to remove this in a month or so, and try again, but for now I recommend that we do not remove this site. Eagle 101 05:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of web sites are on many different language Wikipedias, such as The White House, Manchester United, Real Madrid, Michael J.Fox Foundation. This is despite all of these sites being in English. Why are they not blacklisted ? Why is subjected to blacklisting when it has been added to different language Wikipedias in precisely the same way that these other sites have been added ? appears to have been added to the relevant Wikipedia articles. If it had been added to a lot of articles on foreign language Wikipedias to which it was not related I could understand the objections. There presently appears to be one standard inconsistently applied to that is not applied to many other web sites.--XX7 11:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is only some of the Wikipedias that the Real Madrid web site has been added :

Azeri Catalan Czech Danish German Estonian Spanish Esperanto French Croatian Korean English

As the Real Madrid web site can be added to Wikipedia in different languages, so should be able to. There are many other web sites besides this that appear on Wikipedias in many different languages. There is an obvious inconsistency in the treatment that is getting here. --XX7 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Err yeah, but that website was not spammed. There is a difference between insertions all at one time, and a gradual build up, as various people find a site a good site. Arguments on how other links are being "treated" don't make much sense to me. Justify this link, the existance or non-existance of other links means nothing to me. As far as applying standards, no I'm not applying standards, I simply saw it get spammed one day and added it. Give me a day to figure out if there were any other spam insertions other then the that I mentioned. If not, I'm willing to take it off and give it a second try. Eagle 101 10:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid is one of the biggest sports clubs in the world, with daily tv and newspare coverage in many countries. It is therefore likely that there would be a gradual build up of its web site on different language Wikipedias. However, cosplay is a little known, obscure and unpublicised subject. It would therefore probably only end on different language Wikipedias if somebody made a concerted effort. I assume that an enthusiast or somebody with an interest in the web site merely did a thorough job of making it available. Without their effort, and left to chance it, realistically would not have ended up on the various Wikipedias. Simultaneoulsy adding to a lot of Wikipedias is the sort of thing that conmmercial spammers do, which is why it no doubt resembled spamming. Added to this is the fact that few people, myself included, would have a clue what it was all about. However, this site doesn't appear to have any adverts. I may be wrong, but it merely looks like a list of forthcoming events - a bit like a calendar of forthcoming sporting events. At present, unless there is more that I don't know about, it doesn't appear to be spam. --XX7 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

QFT. So, if Real Madrid buys a new domain and moves there, it would be wrong to insert a new link on all wikis just because that _might_ be spam? Come on, Eagle 101, you are too harsh, that site is definetely something useful. (Not that my words have any power here, though. ^_^) --Akral. 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Ok its been a while now... I'm going to go ahead and remove this, hopefully the same issues that were found before won't show up again. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: done

Hi! This site is blacklisted for spamming. There was a problem with some users in the forum but now is all ok. Please can be removed from the list?

I did the original blacklisting here. I'm neutral as to if it should be removed or not. All I will say is it has been spammed. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed; since there's no indication this was more than a passing spammer, it's likely they have moved on. However, it will be readded if spamming persists. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:54:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Done

Trying to determine why this site has been blacklisted. It was pointed out the site was an origin for spam. I contacted the guy who runs the site, and he said he know nothing about the problem, or that his site had been blacklisted. is a non-profit community related web site. 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here would be why. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I see a bunch of links pointing to some Polish language pages. Not sure what this has to do with spam? Do I understand correctly that being blacklisted implies spammed wikipedia? 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It means the site has been spammed on wikimedia foundation wikis, and that blacklisting was the only way to prevent insertion of that domain name. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed; there is no indication that this was more than a passing spammer, so the spammer may have moved on by now. Further, the spam in question seems to have included a number of links to meaningful noncommercial organizations, perhaps à la joe job or polluting attack. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:36:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See above (for en:World Championship Wrestling article) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see this Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04/ before removing, thanks! --Beetstra 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
not on blacklist. --Beetstra 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It's still flagging up as blacklisted. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - byproduct of this problem should be fixed, if there are problems mention them in this section below my last post. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a village website in Israel that should be attached to the article Immatain, not linkspam. -- 06:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy sites from above

The issue has been resolved through a private conversation between Don Murphy and Cary Bass.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done yeah already fixed :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yuri Bandazhevsky

His website has been blacklisted for unknown reasons, although Yuri Bandazhevsky ([411]) is an important scientific concerning the Chernobyl disaster (he created the first laboratory in Belarus dedicated to the disaster). Due to the very specific nature of his work, I doubt his link to was spammed since it could be relevant only on his own page and maybe on the Chernobyl disaster page. Note the very controversial nature of the Chernobyl disaster, which might have motivated someone in trying to censor Bandazhevsky. Professor Yuri Bandazhevsky site which has been blacklisted without discussion on his talk page. Lapaz 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Fixed, it was a regex error, not an attempt to "censor" :) Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting that this page is removed from the list. A interview here is vital to Devil May Cry 3 and without it the whole section will end up unreferenced there is no alternate source for this interview. Please note that Devil May Cry 3 is a current Featured Article Candidate. -Dark Dragon Flame (in Wikipedia) 04:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done if it becomes a problem again, it will get re-added, but this is a very old entry so I doubt the original spammer is even around. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to edit en:Bolivia and this link triggered the spam filter. However, I can't find it or any link resembling it on the blacklist. Am I missing something or is there a problem with the filter? Also, the Bolivia page was last edited (with that link present) at 22:32, 1 April 2007 and I can't find any evidence that the link was added to the blacklist since then.--Dycedarg 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I fixed it, though that link really ought not to be on that page. Its taking me 1 minute to load up a page on that. I'm sure there are better sites, but thats my personal opinion. For me to see any of the actual content of this site, it is taking me over 4 minutes (its still loading as I'm typing, and I'm on broadband). —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah it finally loaded. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I know it's a crappy site, but I didn't think that we put sites on the blacklist for having long loading times. I was just making sure there wasn't something wrong with the filter, and besides that the site does have useful information even if it takes forever to get to it.--Dycedarg 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't see any real useful info, but you are right the domain should not be on the blacklist if its not redirecting people around the blacklist. (that was why it was on there to start with). —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I couldn't find the entry for (a hosting domain which claims to have over 300,000 entries/subdomains) on the list, but when i tried to save a page with (a museum about minerals) the link was blocked. Could anyone tell me why? nl:User:Hardscarf

Same here. I would like to preserve a (formerly existing) link to, a website for a turkish dam building project, and which is used at de:Deriner-Talsperre.--Hk kng 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - no problem ever existed as far as I can tell - Ok, works in my sandbox see this. Same for, see this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to edit List of Ufologist but this link keeps getting marked as spam (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Eep! Have you seen that site? Ad-laden Geocities tripe. No way is that a source for anything, I'm removing it from the article. Also from en:Ufology, where it was doing nothing to improve Wikipedia. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I just got "Spam protection filter"-ed trying to edit w:Joseph Finnemore for a link to "". (I didn't put it in, it was there in the original!? Can't even put in this msg.) The link seems to be legit, to an old print. (There are some very* interesting items on the blocked list, though). What's the prob with this link? Are there any workarounds for this site? Thanks, --Saintrain 17:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

(* Reminds me of the quandry the old missionaries faced: How do you tell them what "sin" is but not give them ideas.)

Ask de:Benutzer:Hedwig in Washington in English/German and de:Benutzer:MaxSem please, they are responsible. see:
Comment by Hedwig some days before: And now I´m waiting for complaints. Greetings 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Bullshit, I never said that. It's your personal problem that makes you frustrated. Don't blame your own inability on other user.--Hedwig in Washington 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is anyone here able - no, not you, Hedwig Troll from Washington - to answer the question of Saintrain and of all people, who will ask the same questions in the next years? Btw: de:artnet is a regular en:joint stock company and not suspected of producing spam (except by Hedwig and MaxSern. Unfortunately he speaks no German :-))
  • Examples: here <-- and and here from 22:34, 16. Dez. 2006 to 22:47, 16. Dez. 2006 . Does anyone find one single spamlink at artnet? You can win 5 Euros!
  • I guess, not the most engaged vandal is able to "produce" such a damage like Hedwig and Max, because these few examples from de can give only an impression to what is happening worldwide in wikipedia 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is why the site is currently on the blacklist see here. If you can present good arguemnts on how the original blacklist conditions nolonger apply I will take it off. Regards. Eagle 101 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi it´s unbelievable. Thanks for that link. I planned to wait on the next asker and then to present the next 20 damages on de. But I had no idea, that Hedwig has destroyed 129 articles, only in de. How big is the damage in en? In Germany these people are bestkown as super trolls. (@Hedwig: Das gibt noch ein Nachspiel)
Note: You will not need artnet for illustrations like Da Vinci, Rembrandt or Dürer, but for all these thousands of artists who are only popular (or nearly forgotten even) in their own countries and who have made beautiful stuff like this [[412]. Can´t believe it, honestly. Regards 20:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing can be destroyed, it's a Wiki! So don't cry and don't accuse others of being super trolls, maybe you shall read the rules of Meta and DE-Wiki before complaining and don't try to threaten me. That's not helping your case either. As I said many times before (my email), convince me or let us try to unblock the site and watch it closely. But no, better complain about the system and Admins that don't speak German on Meta. Oh Lord. --Hedwig in Washington 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I´ve asked you one time, see above, that should be enough. 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Anyone here who can tell me the damage in en and fr ? Thank you. Regards 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove it. I'm not sure why was blacklisted in the first place; there's no evidence of spamming. The argument seems to be that it doesn't provide much information, so it seems they were just concerned with the quality of their references. However, it's better to reference a site with little information than not reference at all. I'll ask mzlla, who blacklisted it, to comment. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, the previous discussions were in December 2006 and February 2007. It seems the users involved were concerned with the quality of their references, not spam. Note that widespread placement of a link in good faith to reference an article is not spam, as this quote by one of the requesting user suggests:
"the point is that 129 (see above) links are way too many. Period. That's masslinking and it's not conform with the rules. If it's unblocked, there will be 100 or more within a couple days. I understand the problem the guys have and I really wish it would be different, but unblocking is not the right thing to do IMHO. We should find different ways (websites) to show pictures and the written information is not very useful and doesn't help on the topic."
I'm further inclined to remove it, unless mzlla has another reason I haven't seen. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your decision, no matter what. But don't expect me to clean the mess up again. ;-)) --Hedwig in Washington 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Who else? And don´t forget a single one.
btw.: What´s up with user:mzlla? Is he dead ? 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Found this: It's a little mysterious: mzlla's last edit was in december 2006: 16:00, 7 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Spam blacklist/Log (?December - 4 sites added)
But that gives us time to prove other "spam" trollings by Hedwig, as 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
hi, the spam-block prevents the work in german art articles hendrike 10:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - I'm going to go with pathoschild, and just remove this site from the list. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do note that if this site gets abused again, it will get re-added. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to edit Tasmania UFO Investigation Centre but this link keeps getting marked as spam (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 18:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done this was fixed here. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Last year this domain was blacklisted because some of its members where using it to spam Wikimedia sites. We fully understand Wikimedia's desire to protect itself from this kind of activity, and have sought to rectify this situation fully. This has taken much effort and man hours, from many members of our team, so we hope you will consider our actions carefully.

Summary of Actions:

In March of 2006, was attacked by a group of spammers. They created free profiles on Zorpia and used JavaScript code in their profiles to re-direct a user from the Zorpia site to a spam website. These spammers also posted links to their spam pages on other websites including Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Zorpia’s name was discredited as a result. Since April 2006, the spamming activities on have been largely reduced by the coordinated efforts of both our administrative and technical teams.

Administrators Side:

1.Searched for and banned spammer pages presented by the Google search results as well as any pages linked to them.

2.Searched for suspicious codes in the journals, comments, skins, private messages, testimonials, text areas, different profile sections, headers and footers of suspected pages. These accounts were banned accordingly if found to be containing malicious links.

Technical Part:

1.Blocked JavaScript code from being entered into the free membership profiles. Spammers can no longer enter codes to re-direct other users to other websites.

2.Used the system to search for JavaScript code in the pages of suspected spammers. The administrative team investigated those profiles and banned them accordingly.

3.Submitted banned Zorpia links to Google in order to remove these pages from the Google search results that link Zorpia’s name to malicious spam web pages.

4.Mass ban (including IP address) of suspected profiles.

5.Future projects such as the “URL-spam-checker” are being developed to tighten security even more. Programs like these will stop spammers from being able to advertise the website that they work for and enhance the efficiency of our banning effort.

We do feel that after these concerted efforts by our team, that the domain should be whitelisted, as we do not feel it poses a significant spamming risk to Wikimedia sites. Thank you for your kind consideration.--Ayako 13:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How do these links benefit Wikipedia and do they meet the requirements, for the English Wikipedia, of the External Links and Reliable Sources Guidelines?
We are not asking here about a Wikipedia entry, and there are no links mentioned. Please correct me if I am wrong, but what do External Links and Reliable Sources have to do with blacklist removal, and our great efforts to prevent Zorpia from spamming wikiMedia sites? None of the above text is concerned or attempts to be concerned with the English Wikipedia. This post is concerning our blacklist entry for wikiMEDIA. After a good faith effort, I would just hope for a reasonable consideration on this SPECIFIC topic.--Ayako 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, there was a barrage of attacks from Zorpia people on admins and editors involved with cleaning up this mess a month or so ago. What's the story on that? --A. B. (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
IMPORTANT NOTE: The question echoed is "How do these links benefit Wikipedia and do they meet the requirements, for the English Wikipedia, of the External Links and Reliable Sources Guidelines?" - The above plea contains NO links, nor does it ask for an inclusion in the English Wikipedia. After much effort exercised by Zorpia, I urge other editors to actually READ the submission above.

Lemme quote : is being deleted AND BLACKLISTED by Wikipedia. It means that no one can EVER mention Zorpia in Wikipedia. E.g.:
- Zorpia cannot appear in Wikipedia's list of social networking websites.
- Wikipedia's 9/11 entry cannot refer to your page, when you write about your valid and unique conspiracy theory about 9/11 in Zorpia.

- Wikipedia's Britney Spears entry cannot refer to your photos, even if you are a paparazzi having taken a photo of her shaving her head!

The two latter points are a VERY GOOD reason not to remove this site from blacklist. MaxSem 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Zorpia was blacklisted for spamming, you are quoting out of context on issues irrelevant to this matter. Bloggers mentioning current events and referencing on wikiPEDIA has nothing to do with white listing on wikiMEDIA's many sites/projects. Please note the domain we are in ( 00:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
With regards to this domain,, here is the description from the main page:
Projects, such as different language versions of Wikipedia, typically have whitelists that specifically apply just to them. For instance, the discussion page for the English language Wikipedia's whitelist is at You can ask for whitelisting at the projects where you wish to add links, assuming those links are appropriate. You'll probably have better success doing this than trying to get global whitelisting here.
I hope this helps. --A. B. (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you haven't told us anything we don't already know A.B. It isn't a case of where we will get easier success, its a case of goals. It also is not a case of where we (Zorpia Co Ltd), intend to place links. We have no plans to place any in fact. I don't expect you to understand our goals, but I would like you to take place in the decision here relating to the facts presented. So far, you have not managed to comment on even one part of our reasoning as to why we should be white listed, and have only managed to comment of things which are not mentioned and not relevant. So, thanks for you help on giving the wikiPEDIA whitlist - but wikiPEDIA is not of specific concern or interest to us. Having cleared that up, I wonder if we can stay on topic now?--Ayako 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done we will see how much improvement this site has done. Though if we start getting problems with too many individual members adding their own Zorpia page, we might end up re-blacklisting and doing selective local whitelisting. We will see how this goes :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: removed

This site does not belong on the blacklist because it is an educational site with only positive (useful) intentions. The site was created and run by a Psychologist (PhD in Psychology) specifically as an educational site for psychology students and people interested in psychology. There is no malware, spyware, etc., associate with this site. The site is for educational purposes only.

Here is why is on the spam blacklist
#11 Jul 06 - bot spamming en.wp
I will think about removal. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
An added note, please sign your posts using ~~~~. Thank you.—— Eagle101 Need help? 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've found more information here. Still thinking about removal. Does the site have any use? —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed; the original incident is relatively old (July 2006), it's quite possible the site is no longer being spammed, and there is conceivably value in the site's content. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:11:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Removals: Not done

I tried to fix fix a small inacurracy in the article about the Citroën GS (a specific model of cars). I was told I could not change the article unless I remove the link to Since I am a quite unexperienced wikipedia user and the link seems quite useful to me (it provides a lot of historic original material about citroen) I am reluctant to delete it. Could someone experienced check if there is a good reason for blacklisting this site or else remove the link so that I as a new user don't have to take the responsibility to remove stuff that I cannot find anything wrong about. Thanks!

X mark.svg Not done The link was used in a massive spam attack on Itailian wiki as far as I understand. You can request local whitelisting though. Try to give them a deep link to a specific page on the site. (such as "". —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix fix a small inacurracy in the article about the Citroën GS (a specific model of cars). I was told I could not change the article unless I remove the link to Since I am a quite unexperienced wikipedia user and the link seems quite useful to me (it provides a lot of historic original material about citroen) I am reluctant to delete it. Could someone experienced check if there is a good reason for blacklisting this site or else remove the link so that I as a new user don't have to take the responsibility to remove stuff that I cannot find anything wrong about. Thanks!

X mark.svg Not done The link was used in a massive spam attack on Itailian wiki as far as I understand. You can request local whitelisting though. Try to give them a deep link to a specific page on the site. (such as "". —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix fix a small inacurracy in the article about the Citroën GS (a specific model of cars). I was told I could not change the article unless I remove the link to Since I am a quite unexperienced wikipedia user and the link seems quite useful to me (it provides a lot of historic original material about citroen) I am reluctant to delete it. Could someone experienced check if there is a good reason for blacklisting this site or else remove the link so that I as a new user don't have to take the responsibility to remove stuff that I cannot find anything wrong about. Thanks!

X mark.svg Not done The link was used in a massive spam attack on Itailian wiki as far as I understand. You can request local whitelisting though. Try to give them a deep link to a specific page on the site. (such as "". —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here aren't any bad things. (/firefox_mozilla._browser.html). --Mihael Simonic 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - see this, and this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit where this was added asserts with no evidence that Jimbo requested it. I would like to see at least a diff to where this request was made or it should be removed as out of process. This addition was also not logged. --Random832 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest asking jimbo on his talk page, if he indeed did not request it he would say so there. Eagle 101 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
He never answered when this was brought up before, and I think that the burden should be on Raul654 to produce evidence of the claim in his edit summary. We don't know if he specifically requested that they should be added to the blacklist, or if he said he doesn't like their use of sources and was misinterpreted, or even which hat he was wearing. --Random832 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Try sending him (Jimbo) an e-mail (using the special email this user function), and request that Raul provide some proof, perhaps on his talk page. Invite him to comment here perhaps? Eagle 101 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, this has already been brought up here. Eagle 101 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Eagle 101 here. But more importantly, I tend to trust Raul, barring any evidence to the contrary, when he acts in ways that suggest that Jimbo asked for things. Just as I tend to trust my other fellow admins when they say that, or when they say (on en:wp) that something is an WP:OFFICE action, I trust them there too rather than getting into revert wars or sparring about it. And when Raul makes a mistake, which is not that often, it's not because he's malicious, it's because, hey, he's human, as are we all. Coming in here and saying things like "the burden is on Raul" isn't very friendly in my view, and may not be the best approach. Better to explain why this really isn't a spam link, and ask politely for a review. On the face of it, it certainly appears to be such a link just by the name. Also, this list ultimately exists to defend the wikis from garbabe and there is not that much harm from having a link on there by mistake. More harm comes from not having links on there by mistake. So I support erring on the side of caution. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm, doesn't AGF apply on meta?--Doc glasgow 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
See this for Jimbo's reply. Eagle 101 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start this over, and try not to get into questions of who requested what and who claimed what and when and what burdens should and should not be on whom to do what. The germaine question is: is there reason for this domain to be spam-blacklisted at the present time. As suggested by Lar, I politely request a review. I have read some of the history, and this domain does appear to be causing a great deal of heat on both sides. I think some of the reasons of this are:

  • MySpace offers hosting for blogs, and various notable people (actors, comedians, musicians) as well as bands etc have blogs on this site. Some of these people or groups are discussed in factual and informative ways on wikipedia, and the article contributors feel that a link to the blog maintained by the person or group would be a useful addition to the article.
  • MySpace offers hosting for blogs, and many of the blogs are garbage.
  • There may have been a problem in the past with links to MySpace being spammed on wikipedia. There may indeed be an ongoing problem, but I think this is unclear, and this is why I ask for the review.

As with other hosting services, there will almost certainly be problems from time to time with spamming of individual blogs/pages, but these should be dealt with individually not by blacklisting the whole domain. Are there still compelling reasons to blacklist the whole MySpace domain? If so, can these please be stated for the record, with evidence and explanation, and with details of how article contributors can request whitelisting for individual verified blogs if appropriate? I think that should help cool things down in the future. If the reasons for the original blacklisting no longer apply, can it be removed from the list? Mooncow 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Good summation. One thing to keep in the mix of course is that whether or not our honorary GodKing requested it originally, he does approve of keeping it on for now per the diff given. He's a reasonable fellow though, I hear, so if the case can be made, it should be, and he'll no doubt change his mind. That said, my thinking at this point is informed by a hypothetical... Suppose 99.9% of the subdomains/pages of a site are something that only get spammed, and 0.1% are good... In that case it would be reasonable to spamblock it, and whitelist exception the 0.1% good, wouldn't it? whitelist exceptions are harder though. If it were the other way around, and 0.1% of the subdomains/pages were spam and 99.9% good, no one would argue that we should spamblacklist the exceptions. Now, somewhere there's a point of balance. Given that it's harder to whitelist than blacklist it's probably not at the 50/50 point, it skews. But what is it, and what are the numbers in this case? I have no opinion because I have no more data, but I think this analysis might be a reasonable way to get cost/benefit understanding? ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Could we at least unban myspace blogs from Talk pages? I need to cite a fact from a musiacian's myspace blog to counter a claim of original research. 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The blacklist extension does not work selectively. Its an all or nothing deal. The easy way around this is to simply do (in wikitext it is <nowiki></nowiki>). That will allow another person to find the link. Eagle 101 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
My comment here is another example of the problem, if any were needed. The only people that can resolve this are the people who understand the technicalities behind the blacklisting/whitelisting process and I'm happy for them to act as they see fit. The only thing I would add is to question whether it is unfriendly program code that has lead to the situation where whitelisting is considered 'difficult' and that more subtle code could perhaps be made to filter on the FriendID= Daytona2 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmm elaborate, I don't understand what you are getting at at all :) If it is a proposed change in the regex I can do something, otherwise I have to refer it to bugzilla and the devs :) Eagle 101 06:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you don't understand :-) Lar said that whitelisting is harder. Is this the case, if so why ?. If it weren't so I'd say blacklisting but allowing only specified entries through (if that's the way it works) would be the way to go. You don't need to add program code to interrogate the FriendID= property in the URL if you just add URLs to a database, but if, in future, they change the URL sufficiently it may cause problems. Daytona2 13:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My Blog URL]This is blacklisted in my user space; I did not find any rules restricting blog address in user space and I think it is permitted in talk space as well, if I'm wrong about that tell me. Blog links certainly should be permitted in talk and its vandalism to delete links in my user space. I will try the above mentioned "easy way around this", though it does not seem believable that they can't distinguish between article, talk and user space in the blacklisting. 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the myspace accounts be treated like accounts?
The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 23:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is X mark.svg Not done. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this belongs to the "url shorteners" list, because this isnt shortening the address, it makes it bigger, not smaller.

regardless, it is a redirect site, and allows bypassing of the spamblacklist. I recommend against removal. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
An added note, please sign your posts using ~~~~. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Naconkantari 22:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Website of Aktion Reinhard - a holocaust archive site. The site is linked to from en:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and af:Warskou Ghetto Opstand amongst others. The spam filter is making it impossible to edit these pages... 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done here is why it is on the spam blacklist. Until those issues are resolved, I don't see a valid reason to remove. Now if you want to use one of the two ( or you can request local whitelisting, though I would try to keep it to deeplinks if possible or Regards —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This being in the blacklist makes no sense. It is a very reliable source for minor league sports press releases and team information! Tom Danson 20:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done that link has never been on this list. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Not done

This site offers well-sorted galleries with photos of relevant places all around the world. Sure, they are rather small, but if equivalent photos are not available on Commons, a link to petrophoto might serve as a temporary substitute. --Langec 14:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC) here is why it is on the spam blacklist. We got spammed across multiple wikis with this. I am going to note that you could possibly contact the owner of the site for permission, or if the images fall under public domain you can use that. I will consider taking it off, give me a day or two. Comments are welcome here. :) Eagle 101 22:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Well as I added the site, I won't say no for sure, but I recommend against removal. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 05:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Not done per recent discussions in February 2007 and March 2007 (one, two, three, and four). Perhaps in another month or so, after any spammer has had time to give up and wander off. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:01:04, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done(for the bot) —— Eagle101 Need help? 12:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not removed

I'd like to request my site, be removed from the blacklist.

Though I was warned about adding too many links in one go, and though some of these links may have been inappropriate, I feel that some other links, such as our site's interview with Billy Hayes (Of Midnight Express) and Camille Paglia are content rich pages that are worthwhile external references. We would only reinstall such external links, if we were to be reinstated.

Mark Adnum,

I recommend highly against taking this off. What happened here was a classic case of spamming with multiple user accounts to be harder to detect. On the english wikipedia we also have guidelines on conflicts of interest, which would include site owners adding links to their sites. Eagle 101 23:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not removed; this request is a conflict of interest by the requester. Please show a consensus on several pages among established editors that the link is beneficial, and let them add it if it is unblacklisted in the future. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to investigate my request. Is there anything I can do to assist, or will the editors decide which links are acceptable for re-inclusion on the Wikipedia database?

It just strikes me that many sites,m such as Man Net, provide endless links back to their own sites. As I explanied previously, I agreI overstepped the mark. But I definitely feel that some links are worth inclusion in WIkipedia. Please help me resolve this issue, and again, apologies.

Demonstrate to me how man net has spammed, if we had caught them, it is very likely that they would be on this list as well. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

They, and other sites, often ad heir own reviews and interview to relevant pages, and so I assumed it was acceptable to do the same to.. This page, on Matthew Rush: contains links at the bottoms to an external interview with Matthew Rush. Why is this acceptable yet my Interview with Camille Paglia has to be removed from her wiki page?

Or this page which contains external links placed by the site owners.

As for ManNet examples, see her:

I just assumed that's what external links were for.

Ah, becuase you spammed a link, and were told to stop. Those other sites are presumed to have not been spammed. Trust me I'm not picking on one site, I just reverted another guy adding 20 links to wikipedia today. Thing is that he stopped, you did not. Please read the english wikipedia's information on what spamming is, and our info on conflict of interest. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. please sign your posts using ~~~~. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now read and re-read those policies. I don't make any excuse for excessively linking, especially after I did receive the warnings. I sincerely apologise.

Ok, will you add this link again? In any case, ask in a month. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The only links I would ever add again would be my interviews with Camille Paglia which is content rich, recent and of interest to anyone seeking information on that person. Likewise, Billy Hayes and Joey Stefano, as there is little info out there on those two people. I've no intenton of linking o any others. What are my possibilities of being reinstated and able to add these links?

Ask in a month, as thats still en:WP:COI. If you can get the editors on that article to agree with you that that is a good link, then you may request local whitelisting. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance this morning. One last request: Who and where do I ask in a month?

You ask here. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This was closed as X mark.svg Not done (for the bot) —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It also is idiotic that this page is in the blacklist. On the wikipedia article Ultimate Victory (the sophomore album by Chamillionaire), it still lists the release date as April 24, when Cham himself said in his myspace blog that it had been pushed back until June 5. Now I can't edit the page to correct the date! Could somebody please help me? Tom Danson 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done request local whitelisting. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Has this page only just been added to the blaclist? I edited a page that has a myspace link on it a few days ago and didn't encounter any problems, but now the blacklist is being triggered. 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It was added about a month ago. You might have added something like —— Eagle101 Need help? 12:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to cite a composer's post in this (his official) forum. I know it doesn't seem terribly reputable at first glance, but it is important to the soundtrack section of the article en:The Third Mother.

X mark.svg Not done See this, generated from an archive search. Please request local whitelisting of preferably a deeplink to a page of the forum that you need. (for english wiki they request this). —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, this was very helpful. You may remove my post if you wish. (another one, I know)

It's needed in w:Chronology of the Doctor Who universe as a citation from an officially created MySpace tie-in. MySpace is used so frequently by producers (e.g. those of Doctor Who, Nip/Tuck, Veronica Mars etc.) to tie in with their TV series, that it's sometime NECESSARY to cite it. It should just be removed from the blacklist, although I'll simultaneously apply for a local whitelisting. (w:User:Zythe) 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, local whitelisting will do. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done

I tried to add a page from to the Bible entry because it linked 40 non-English Bibles, but I discovered that it had been blacklisted. I cannot find on the Spam blacklist content page, so I'm wondering if this block is legit. I can't imagine a religious, content-based site posting "widespread, unamangeable spam." Can anyone shine some light on this or remove the blacklisting? If someone did spam that site on a single page or two, then perhaps that page or two should be locked or the domain blocked from those pages. --Holy Hell5 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen! X mark.svg Not done MaxSem 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
User blocked indef. Naconkantari 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My site was blacklisted because of creating a hyperlink on non-english page. This was purely a mistake and would not be repeated at all. provides useful content which have been appreciated by all the site visitors. Tutorials on AJAX, ebXML, UDDI, XML-RPC, EVM, PMP Exams, Six Sigma are really useful for the beginners and more tutorials like Ruby on Rails, AJAX and PHP etc are under pen and will be uploaded soon. has intention to contribute a lot to WIKIPEDIA projects as well. For example content available on Wikipedia for "Ruby on Rails" and AJAX, ebXML need revision and TutorialsPoint.Com is planning to give their time to make these topics more rich for Wikipedia visitors. Plus is giving Wikipedia's Reference in almost all tutorials available at

So a humble request is to remove this useful site from blacklist.

Best Regards TutorialsPoint.Com

False, looks like your continuing to spam wikipedia by by spamming (under this very same IP) see [413]. Both and are confirmed the same owner, (Adsense pub-7133395778201029). I would recomend to the reviewing admin to deny this request and also add to the blacklist as well, as this too is the same confirmed owner. thanks. --Hu12 09:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
For a full list of IP's and associations please review this talk page data--Hu12 09:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
also is also the same Adsense pub-7133395778201029. entries on the english wikipedia, see [414]. also please block this as well. --Hu12 09:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are very correct and are on the same IP address. But I'm not concerned about and you can blacklist those sites and it is true that continue spaming was not intention behind putting a link on wikipedia but I was thinking that someone is removing my link intentially so I had put my link once again when I saw that someone has removed my link. Because there was no warning message or any alert so I could not understand that it will lead to spamming. Later I realized my mistake and I'm feeling very sorry about that mistake. But is a useful site and I would request you not to put this site in blacklist.

Best Regards

Crosswiki spamming of; on es: by here, on es: by here and on es: by here. Also another on eo: by here. Regards--Hu12 12:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
oh, and the link to added to by IP --Hu12 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have agreed that's link were added on non-english sites but my intention was not spaming. I had seen links for another english sites like which is similar to my site so I had added my site links also where other non english sites like is linked. If you think is spamming then definitley I'm culprit and you can ban as well otherwise for the benefit of beginners I would request you to remove from blacklist. Before adding my link I was not aware that it will lead to spam as I have said I thought that someone is removing my link so I had added my link once again. So please take it as a mistake which has happend without proper knowledge. I'v hosted for a noble cause to help others like you are helping.

Hope you will understand the situation and will give a chance to I don't advocate for or so you can blacklist those sites.

Best Regards

Just checked the IP Address which does not belong to my at all. Even this IP address does not belong to India where I reside and from where I manage my site. Not sure if these links were added by me or by any opponent of my site who wanted my site to be blacklisted.

Please block this IP address and put my site into whitelist.

Best Regards (en:talken:contribsen:linksen:counten user logsen user page logs || WHOISRDNStracerouteRBLstorsearch) appears on at least two Internet blacklists. It's registered to Convergys, an American multinational with a big (20,000+ employees) outsourcing operation in India. Note that the IP used above,, also appears on two major blacklists.[415] I recommend checking to see if it's an open proxy. --A. B. (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this verification, further I would request you to block this IP address because my service provider is Bharti and I do my site maintenance from Bharti IP Address only. I'm not sure if Convergys is an ISP or not.

My further request is to remove my site from blacklist. As I said earlier my intention is to help students out here and not to spam useful sites like wikipedia. I had added my link to wikipedia following which has more than 50 links on wikipedia.

Best Regards

I'm expecting a positive response from admin side. I request please review my site once and if you feel its a useful site for students and IT beginners then please remove it from black list.

Best Regards

X mark.svg Not done, clear evidence of cross-wiki spam. Naconkantari 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kantari, I had accepted that it was a mistake and not intentional spamming. As the site is an education site and not any entertainment or commercial site so it should not be blacklisted. If in future it repeats from the definitely site can be banned forever but I've accepted my mistake here. Second other cross spamming was done by someone else which is clear from an IP address which does not belong to me.

Considering the site as educational site and a mistake from my side please give me a chance and remove my site from black list.

Regards TP.

Entire List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines

The following discussion is closed: Not done (nothing to remove)

It seems like every website referenced for a Fraternity or Sorority on this page has been Blacklisted. I've tried commenting them out one by one, but after about the sixth, I'm wondering if any of them *haven't* been blacklisted. Could someone let me know the current status? 12:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the english wikipedia, I don't have any problems saving the page. If you have a question about a specific link feel free ask. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Also note there are no references on that page, all I see is a bunch of external links which may or may not fit with english wikipedia's en:WP:EL guidelines. :) But if you have questions about a link please ask. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not done, nothing to remove. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:41:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


I was telling people on playstation talk pages about the new wikiproject on playstation products. I didn't know it would be considered spam. I stopped posting copies. To view the project click here. 14:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done we can't blacklist words. Unless you are adding a url (weblink). If so please make a specific request for that. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A lastmeasure site. Was linked at en:Troll (internet). Mangojuice 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done (not on blacklist) - link is not on the backlist to start with. See my sucessful addition of the link to my sandbox here. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This link is used in [416] article and it directs to a site describing glitches in video games. I would not like to remove the link from the article myself (I was not the one who put it there), but its presence prevents me from editing the article. Please advise. [417], 06:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

  • Removed the link. is blacklisted for excellent reasons. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done - shorturl is blacklisted because it allows folks to bypass this blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remove from the blacklist. It is quite normal site devoted to a history of nazi deathcamps and ghettos of times of the Second World War Ben-Velvel

  • This has been discussed here. ElinorD 08:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The hyphenated spammers have been emailing the OTRS list. I told them as far as the admins on enWP and several other languages are concerned the case is closed, we don't need their fight. I hope we are not going to reopen Pandora's box here. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The hyphenated site has been shut. Please remove the site (original since 2002) from the blacklist. Thank you. -- Simplicius 15:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The "hyphenated site" will soon be online again. Legal law must win against activities below the belt. Simplicius will have to excuse for his hasty proposal! Michael Peters (former webmaster of deathcamps,webmaster of death-camps). The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 April 2007.
  • Here we go again! More shameless promotion of fraudulent websites! Enough entertaining these frauds at the hyphen site! Keep the fake website with the Hyphen blacklisted and end this insanity already. These countefeiters can't fool the people of the world. Justice won't be played out in the court of public opinion here on Wiki! The fake site www.death- camps .org was a fraudulent site and was removed for fraud and infringement. Enough said already! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fightonlinefraud (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 April 2007.
X mark.svg Not done Naconkantari 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Not sure where this goes. I have no connect to this article, but I came across and one of the source links is so long that it writes over the picture, etc on this page, so I tried to add a "" redirect to fix formatting, but it said I couldn't. Why? Can someone else fix the super long link problem if tunyurl is a no go? thanks 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell would do. The link to the google cache doesn't mention "of Dutch and Irish descent" either. 04:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. We do not link to TinyUrl for reasons that have been discusseed ad nasuem. Raul654 04:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done - tinyurl also allows folks to bypass this blacklist. If you want to shorten a url just put it in brackets like this (so you can see the formatting [ this]) Hope that helps. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Not done (whitelisted)

I am not sure why this site is blacklisted, but it be great if it could be removed from the list. I would like to keep the link on the Charlotte Wilson page. 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

here is why the link is blacklisted, I recommend against removing it from the blacklist, but I do strongly suggest that you request local whitelisting, your situation is exactly what the whitelist is designed for. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok done, thanks. 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not done, whitelisted. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) or www.???

The following discussion is closed: Not done

I would have this domain unlisted, maybe there are spams, but this is a normal and free domain and community for private and non-commercial users. I don`t see any reason to keep that domain at the black list.

Not removed. Webhosts with weak or no verification are too easily abused for spam purposes, despite any legitimate users. A quick Google search shows that many sites are currently affected by spam from Consider titles like "buy cheap link xanax.html, buy cheap link xanax ..." or "html u style display none http xultram blog" (style="display:none;" is a common spam technique). —{admin} Pathoschild 19:56:37, 01 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Not done

I'm trying to create a userbox for people who play the game Lost, to be used on Userpages, which as far as I know is quite allowed. I understand why it's blacklisted, but I'm trying to use it legitimately. Is there any way to blacklist the website only in the article namespace, or is there some way to get around the block? If not, can we remove it? -- Robert See Hear Speak 00:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, and here is why it is on the spam blacklist. They have a contest going on, and people are spamming it from everywhere. Its probably not going to be removed until the contest is over. I recommend against removal. As far as whitelisting, I doubt they will do it for the same reasons. Just use a wikilink in the template. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 05:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Not removed per Eagle 101. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:16:53, 01 May 2007 (UTC) or ???

The following discussion is closed: not done

KUSO.CC is a short url service provider, just like Wikipedia should be remove the from blacklist, thanks a lot.

X mark.svg Not done - don't worry tinyurl is on this blacklist as well :) Url redirect sites are always blacklisted, especially when they are abused to bypass this list. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought you should also block all the short url site, like [] [] []

Sure, added. --.anaconda 21:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

09 F9 ...

This isn't a URL, yet it is banned. The spam blacklist is not designed as a method of censorship for legal purposes and works exceedingly poorly as one, as the above header demonstrates. For the record, I was trying to edit w:Talk:HD DVD but was unable to because it already had this string in it. GreenReaper 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to edit a deletion review on an article of this name (now at w:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 2/09 9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0) and got blocked by the spam blacklist. This seems grossly inappropriate. --Goobergunch 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done this is not currently on the spam blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. This appears to be due to Wikipedia developers attempting to add it to a local spam regex. See w:MediaWiki talk:Spamprotectiontext. If this sort of thing happens regularly I'd suggest updating the message there, because otherwise people get redirected here. GreenReaper 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I really really doubt the devs added it. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, someone who had access to globalsettings.php did temporarily, it seems, since Goobergunch got it as well. It's not there now.GreenReaper 07:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia wishes to censor content (and unlike some of the digg-reading kiddies I can actually see why they would want to) they should do so honestly and openly. This is not a url, yet I was unable to add it to my user page because it is said to be a blacklisted hyperlink. Please Wikipedia- give your reasons for wishing to censor this content, and do so transparently. Not by fraudulent means. Lurker 10:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note you can add the key by posting half of it, then saving page, then addimg the rest. Hah! Talk about an amateurish way of censoring content. Lurker 10:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
El no poder poner esta serie de números me parece una forma de censura que está fuera de lugar en una enciclopedia libre como esta. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) . (English translation by Babelfish: "Not to be able to put this series of numbers it seems to me a censorship form that is outside place in a free encyclopedia like this.") --Versageek 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, lets try this again :) The spam blacklist does **NOT** have the ability to backlist that number, regardless if we want it to or not. If that string is blacklisted by now, it was done by the developers. In otherwords this is X mark.svg Not done (not added or removed). :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So what remedy is there? How does one officially communicate with the developers to request it removed?--Cerejota 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You think they don't know that people want to continue the keyspamming? Just zis Guy, you know? 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC) + +

The following discussion is closed: not done

These sites contain Amazon affiliate links. However that is not a reason to blacklist them. We do not allow people to add affilaite links to to WP, we do not have a "contagion" policy that says we cannot link to sites with affilite links, or most of our external links would have to go. This blacklisting has deprived WP editors and users of a useful tool, and should be reversed. Rich Farmbrough 10:59 4 April 2007 (GMT).

Here is the reason why these are on the blacklist. These sites got abused. Also as far as I know, you can use ISBN 1234567890 to link to book reviews etc, so right now the way I see it, is we are preventing spam, and not losing very much in return. If you want to leave a location for users to go to see how to obtain the book just use the ISBN number. I'd recommend against removal for now, it was actually abused. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly this one was here on meta at Meta:Book sources - I had to remove it before I could revert an additional link placed (in passing the page does have rather a lot of links - should it be watched more/semi prot?) --Herby talk thyme 10:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Not removed. These sites serve no useful purpose— they simply link to Amazon sites, which we could do ourselves— and do appear to have been quietly spammed to various book sources pages (where we already have links to search Amazon). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:50:38, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: not done

I have just tried to add a link on wikipedia to yoyita . com (can't even use it here) (the link was present previously, but now catches the attention of the blacklist with further edits). This site is thoroughly useful to the article I was editing (contrapposto), and seems to be only informative. Now, the list does contain \byoyita\.com, whatever that is (regex word boundary?). Can I ask whether this regex is intended to blacklist the URL I am trying to use, and, if yes, why? Jameshfisher 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

here and here are why. I recommend against taking this off the list, and I suggest that you request local whitelisting for a deeplink of that site. (by deep link I mean ''). —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Not removed, crosswiki spam over the long term. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:56:52, 07 May 2007 (UTC)


Here is one item on the spam blacklist:


It has been there for a long time but it seems too broad. It is blocking some legitimate external links I want to add to en:Comparison of Canadian tax solutions. Could you please broaden it to say


instead? It would still cover the majority of such spam sites at Blogspot, since most spam sites tend to have dashes in their domain names. Cheers, en:user:unforgettableid

Um, why on earth would we want to link to a blog with a title matching this pattern? Surely if there is a blog which matches the pattern and is a valid link we can use local whitelisting for that site; the chances of spam are vastly greater than those of valid sources with such domains. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I want to link to a certain review on It seems the blacklist entry I am up against is the only one so broad; most of the other ones with (, |, and ) are much narrower. I don't want other people to hit the same problem as me. But never mind; I will request whitelisting instead. --en:user:unforgettableid
X mark.svg Not done whitelisting requested as stated above :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand, why it is blocked? This is respectable, Holocaust related site with a lot of useful information.en:User:Lamerkhav, ru:User:Lamerkhav 10:44 Tue, May 8, 2007 (ETZ)

X mark.svg Not done I'm going to refer you to this. There are several reasons why this is on the blacklist at this time. If you have questions feel free to ask. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I used this article [418] as a reference in this article [419] and got a Spam message which directed me here. I know nothing of this site, but the article apeared the most authoritative of those I researched. The author was The Guardian newspaper's student travel writer of the year in 2001, and is a member of the British Guild of Travel Writers [420]. Is the site listed by mistake, or is there something hidden? SilkTork 00:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC) I wasn't allowed to post this message with the site address, so I have replaced "101" with "1*1". SilkTork 00:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Background material (partial list):
--A. B. (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done please request local whitelisting, preferably of just that domain, (ie, just the page that you need to reference). That site encorages its editors to spam their links out to their articles, as they pay editors for each page view, therefore the whole domain should not be removed from the blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for unlisting

I request and be unlisted from blanklist I have given details on another page and in summation. This blacklist cases brand damage haven paid money for trademarking. The blacklisting took place do to NPOSS and A and B harassment. Links added were suitable to the sections added to. The site is a ten language education site suitable for 13/14 - 18/19 in the british. Some sections on this site are too detailed some are not detailed enough etc. Anyway the constant stalking of nposs and A and B led to them malicious and false arguments which they admitted to in action. I have noticed that this is a strain of behaviour of many on this site not realising wiki world has real word effects. You have associated the site with terms such as vandalous spam etc even though spam is only spam if it is not relavent. And vandalous suggests inappropriate malicious edits which is not and was not the case. I have noticed some filthy links being allowed and countless youtube and myspace links. So arguments that were given were invalid they would accept that it was unvalid and would continue to a new argument. etc. Now there are real world consequences to what you do and they have duped you into making committing brand damage I want these sites removed from your blacklist. This is an education site. People spent 10mins plus on the pages linked to on average so they were useful this is fact! Wiki is for everyone not this clicky community it has become.They have been communicating with others to rope them into the harassment of these links. You have blacklisted even though the site has not been listed do not put wikipedia in this situation. These sites do not sell there are no advertising if there was advertising there would be nothing wrong with that either you link to countless sites that eventually sell something. Specific pages of education were linked to also. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 03:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some relevant information. I got a note, which can be seen on my talk page here on english wiki and on meta wiki. Following my request for brevity, I got this legal threat. He admits that he uses multiple IPs, which he said is something as a result of his ISP, (accounts for why the IPs are not the same). In any case the discussions where the blacklisting was done is at:
As I did the original blacklisting I'm going to leave this up to a second meta admin. Regards. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes these guys are thorough in there harassment. It is only a matter of before wiki gets in trouble by this kind of behaviour. You guys are public I will want all mention of these sites to be taken from these pages. was not even linked to on wikipedia as that is my front page and would serve absolutely no purpose what so ever he simply did that one out of plain harassment I wouldnt be surprised if he added it himself. You shouldnt allow people like that on here. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 05:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See en:User talk:Rickie rich#Summary: accounts and behaviour on Wikipedia for a summary of this user's multiple accounts, domains, blocks and discussions.--A. B. (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Goto rickie rich user talk for proof of stalking by A B he has catalogued the extent of his stalking and admitts to brand damaging of The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

  • Stalking

AB has now tracked down my address and encouraged viewing. EAGLE WHY are you not address my concerns this is not acceptable. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

  • eagle

Everybody uses multiple IPs no one has a static IP anymore in Europe I have explained this over and over again. There is a real world out there you cannot do things by wiki world rules now make the changes I have requested stop fanning the flames. How can you adhere to brand damage and fight for the continuing support of brand damage. Fix this problem please.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

  • According to the sie owner's complaint to OTRS, not being allowed to add his links to Wikipedia is ruining his website. I don't think one could ask for a clearer endorsement of blacklisting than that. There appear to be only two ways forward form here: leave it on the blacklist, or unlist it and return to the endless round of revert, block, ignore. I'd say the former is less disruptive and a better use of our time. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I said you idiot why it is not okay right to link to my home address to find other things I am involved in that have nothing to do with wikipedia slander my sites etc. I did not say what you said. I am going to the police with this cause this is crazy. You can trace other things I am involved in and put me on a blacklist that is used by other people you have associated my brands with terms like vandelous spam etc etc. Haven stated that your blacklist is used by others. Gary you are a liar. 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That really moves the debate forward, doesn't it? Oh, by the way, factual inaccuracy above: not everybody uses multiple IPs in Europe. Mine has been static for about three years. There is no "brand damage". The only damage is that you can't use Wikimedia sites to boost your site traffic. Find some other way of getting traffic, helping you get traffic to your site is not one of our objectives. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

When you create a new word that you trademark it is new. as a result when search algorithms try to decide what it is about they use proximity equations so if you have a new word associated with spam vandelous etc. You have link to porn etc which eagle has allowed and not blocked *[421] Mine on the other had is an education site at both ends basic and complex. I removed commercial catalogues that Nposs has a business association with etc. And as a result everything I am involved with is tracked down and my address linked on things that have nothing to do with wikipedia. If that happened in the real world, well it just wouldnt happen. In wikiworld people think that it is okay. If a search is down on any of these companies wiki spam and vandelous opinions will come up even before my sites because wiki is highly ranked everywhere. I was getting 110+ visitors a day before wikipedia had any of my links now it is down to 14. with my site being associated with spam vandelous etc. If I submit to any directory that is human edited they will do a search and wikipedia spam and vandelous will come up you have done massive brand damage. If I attach my brands to anything in the real world spam etc will come up. As well as links to my address. I can not comprehend how no one can even understand what you have done. I simple cannot believe. A. B. new what he was doing because that was his intention

  • I suggest we close this discussion as being plainly unproductive. Even if the site were removed from the blacklist, any links would be swiftly reverted per en:WP:EL, en:WP:COI and en:WP:SPAM. The meat of the request appears to be that this is all a vast conspiracy to keep the site owner from his inalienable right to get traffic from Wikipedia. The only person who fails to see where he has gone wrong is the requester himself. This is in spite of at least four admins having told him, both here and on OTRS. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh please not again. Dealing with these links has been a massive nuisance on .en. None of these links would ever be able to stay on .en anyways and their comments about traffic issues amount to an admission that they want to spam Wikimedia projects to boost their ranking. JoshuaZ 03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been told that basically you have committed libel you have also admitted libel. Why is it you guys dont understand that we live in the real world you are not allowed to commit libel. I have said I no longer want anything to do with wiki, I said that i want all content to do with me and my brands. Including libel. but you refuse and continue to link all over to my address even though I have said not to. You lot simple will not stop. NOW FUCK OFF stop linking to my address and stop libeling my BRANDS I HAVE SAID IT whoops that is another rule break. I bet you guys are going to trackdown my family members and start linking to their addresses as well. Sick Sick people.

A. B. stop your mission you have gone too far.

  • A. B. has diliberately set out to libel these domains and you are going to get in alot of trouble over that blacklist because more than wiki world use that list. Alot more which is why my traffic yet down and is down on when I even new about wiki.
  • It seems you still don't get it. Linking your own site(s) is what we call spamming. Tracking a user's addition of their own sites to articles is a legitimate activity. Blacklisting a domain that has been spammed is not libellous, it's a recognition of the fact that it has been spammed, see en:WP:SPAM. Wikipedia cannot damage a domain or trademarked name by blacklisting, all we do is prevent users from abusing our projects to promote it. If your business model relies on links from Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, your business is probably doomed. en:WP:EL and en:WP:COI also discuss this situation. You state that your traffic is down as a result? Not our problem. Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects are not here to boost your site traffic. The fact that you appear to think that our projects are a legitimate way to boost your site traffic is precisely why you are blacklisted. It really does not get a lot simpler than this, and it has been explained to you a number of times with varying degrees of bluntness. Find some other way of improving your site traffic. Just zis Guy, you know? 06:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is libellous the world doesnt run by your laws you can not blacklist sites that have not been spammed by anyones definition, I am not running a business you dumb ass. You dont get it do. It is not a MONEY MAKING SITE i AM NOT SOME SORT OF BILL GATES. Yes you have damaged a trademark A. B. sees it as that which is why he ran round wiki talking about which has not even been launched nor was it linked to you DUMB idiot. You have worked on the assumption that you guys are normally you are not. You have libeled my sites.
  • Wikipedia will only last until someone can afford to sue because there are so many law breaks it is ridiculous
  • Since you are unable to state your complaint in terms any of us can comprehend, I suspect the problem may be your end. We have not libelled your site, we have blacklisted it. As far as I'm aware the blacklist is not indexed by Google,
  • Yes it is
and even if it was that would not constitute libel because your site met the criteria for listing, which we make clear; however, a debate has been started about renaming the page to "url blacklist" to avoid even the slightest danger that some deluded individual would sue on the basis that their Wikispamming was being described as spamming; as our article makes clear, link spamming in user-editable resources is indeed identified as a form of spamming, so that is not actually a problem. Actually, though, the blacklist does not seem to appear in Google searches and this debate (which you initiated) appears on only the third or fourth page of Google hits for "flo2flo", to pick one at random, so it's extremely hard to see what damage is being done to your trademark - unless you assert (and this does appear to be your contention) that the value of your trademark is undermined by not being able to link from Wikimedia projects - in which case you are simply wrong. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No it is not deluded and you would lose other people use that list it is the big man of wiki tredding on the little guy. No they did not meet the criteria because you black listed sites that were not even linked to only two of the four were and A. B. admitted that he traced down businesses/things he thought I was involved in. it is on your blacklist so it is on about a few thousand anti spam programs already. So if I send a mail to some servers it will not get through at all. If it stays on there are year I am done for. You guys act like the big business you hate. Your idiots. It took me A. B. days to realise it is wrong to link to peoples addresses. He been doing it for months.So basically you admitt damage just question to what amount you guys are strange you see that you are wrong but still assertain the right to act like that
  • Put down the stick and step away from the horse carcass. The problem you describe above comes under the heading of unintended consequences of your own actions, a.k.a. "things you should have thought of before abusing a free volunteer project for promotion of your own enterprises". Just zis Guy, you know? 21:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ON that note I take that as an admission. volunteer doesnt mean you can break the law. I will have to even things up somehow. As I can not afford to take wikipedia to court at the moment maybe I could get wikipedia to take me to court.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

X mark.svg Not done

Troubleshooting and problems