YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Wikitravel talk:Local spam blacklist/Archive 2005 - February 2008

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

See also:

Blacklist nominations[edit]



repeat extlink abuse:


I think that's too general. We might throw the baby out with the bathwater, blocking legitimate links to Google groups. Can we not pick something more specific, like "http\:.*w-89" that blcks this spammer? Pashley 00:50, 13 January 2008 (EST)
I was thinking that a "legitimate" link would be pretty much impossible (per What not to link to)...? ~ 01:43, 16 January 2008 (EST)
True, but the blacklist would also prevent users from linking their own google.groups on their user pages. --Peter Talk 01:56, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Indeed. I suppose if it came to the crunch, they could be whitelisted. ~ 02:16, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Never mind - I just checked, and there are 4 google groups links from userpages already. ~ 02:23, 16 January 2008 (EST)
How about -- "" at least? --OldPine 15:31, 18 February 2008 (EST)


  • spambot hosts [22]:
  • Done! -- Tatata 10:52, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Talk:Main_Page spambots (strike = done):
accomodations-ragovij\.cn [23]
blogg\.no [24]
lviv\.name [25]
onlinests\.org [26] [27] [28]
rudeslut\.com [29]
intershipco\.com [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
2qu l3c (without the space) [35] [36] [37]
322973 398779 (without the space) [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]
38s ojf (without the space) [43] [44]
2r7 ldr (without the space) [45]
Damn, you're persistent. ;) I simply unprotected the page to let you go nuts in editing it. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 12:43, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
Cheers. I removed this page from Wikitravel:Protected pages; if protection is reapplied, my edit will need to be reverted. ~ 14:04, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

spammers & spambot hosts:

  • 50webs\.com [46]
  • maloitestone\.info [47] done 2007-12-19
  • cyberbucks\.info - [48] done 2007-12-19
  • bargains\-hunter\.blogspot\.com [49] [50] done 2007-12-19
  • proposal\-to\-mary\.com [51] [52] [53] [54] done 2007-12-19
  • mp\-discussion\.org [55] done 2007-12-19
  • groups\.google\.com\/group\/bangbla [56] [57] [58] [59] done 2007-12-19
  • unikont\.com [60] done 2007-12-19

repeat extlink abuse:

page creation linkspammers:

  • wikipidiot\.org - [63]
Unless I've missed something seems to have been added to the site once, with no attempt made to explain the Wikitravel:External links policy to the user. Re-iterating policy, the spam blacklist should be used to stop spam, and only used to enforce the external links policy as a last resort - calling a site "spam" is a big deal, and can adversely affect that site's reputation, so we shouldn't be rushing to blacklist. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:06, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
I've moved the nomination from "repeat extlink abuse" to "page creation linkspammers".
Can't explain the policy to the user as the Wikipidiot page was speedy-deleted so I've no way of knowing the IP/username. ~ 11:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

the India cuckoo-phone#spammer (eg Special:Contributions/

  • indiatourismhotels\.com done 2007-12-19
  • westbengalhotels\.com done 2007-12-19
  • westbengaltravelagent\.com done 2007-12-19

"done 2007-12-19" =


repeat extlink abuse:

"done 2008-01-10" =

Getting Removed form the List[edit]

Mexbound was placed text regarding purchasing online mexico insurance. It was taken off and not been replaced. However you decided to blacklist it as spam. It is a legitimate website that sell Mexico insurance. Which is just like other sites on here that have a hotel or a vacation rental in mexico. The section was driving and the information provided by me was regarding driving in mexico. I dont see why it was needed to be added to a spam list. I understand if you want to take it off, however to blacklist a sight that is not a porn site is bad judgement. You should always contact that member first before you just blacklist them, because maybe they did not understand the regulation for wikitravel. .. Also cancunmexicoinsider is also a website providing information regarding hotels maps in cancun. Just like does which is currently on the cancun page. this site has been removed several times, however it is not in the spam list. Please remove these sites from the spamlist. They will not be placed back on, however being in the spamlist is not good for the search engines, and we all have businesses we need to run. Please in the future contact me first before just blacklisting a business. I supply tons of info both to wikipedia and wikitravel. that will increase tourist information in mexico. Thank You - Brian

First, please read Wikitravel:External links. Many of the links that are placed on this list are done so as a way to get the attention of someone who repeatedly added links that were not in accordance with that policy and who we were not able to engage in conversation using talk pages or other methods. Second, the blacklist is not limited to porn sites. Wikitravel:External links outlines the fairly narrow range of links that are permitted under current policy, and the spam list is sometimes used as a last resort way of enforcing that policy. -- Ryan 18:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Totally understand. I placed links in july of 2006 when I did not understand the policy. I have not placed links to an insurance company since then. This is why I asked to get removed from the spam list.

Given that you have already added inappropriate links today, you may want to check out Wikitravel:External links first so that you understand why your links are going to be removed. -- Colin 19:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Does the Local spam blacklist work[edit]

I've just tested adding a URL which is represented on this page to my talk page, and I was able to. I had hoped that the appearance of this page signified that this work had been done, but I guess I was wrong? What's the timeline like? If there's some PHP programming to be done I might have some TUITs available to do it soon. -- Mark

Nope, not yet. -- Mark 01:29, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)
I just tried adding an external link of to the Falkland Islands page and got a message saying that the edit was blocked due to the spam filter. As I understand things this list is updated via CRON job, so it takes a day or so for things to go into effect, but it seems to work. -- Wrh2 01:36, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)
And it actually blocks the above URL on this talk page unless I mangle it... -- Wrh2 01:36, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Does the Local spam blacklist work or not? I just tried adding to User talk:JanSlupski, User:JanSlupski, to Warsaw (and here), as it is on the list for over the month, and it didn't get blocked. Maybe Mr Cron have died month ago and nobody noticed? --JanSlupski 06:12, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT) is being blocked now.--Huttite 23:17, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)

PS. Some old entries are blocked, as I couldn't save this page without mangling it. (

It's not running right now. --Evan 12:54, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Best turn it back on. It's far far better than blockage. -- Mark 05:43, 9 Oct 2005 (EDT)

It works, but too slowly to be able to stop spam spews like today's in realtime. Any way to make the blacklist updates work faster, or ideally immediately? Jpatokal 23:23, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)

The impression I get is that it now works immediately the blacklist is updated. Also I have considered adding the text style\=\" to the list to block HTML style commands that are used to hide a lot of URL's. The only way I could see to block spam more effectively would be to bar anonymous users from adding URL's.
Also, I think the Spam we got today was probably from a robot network using captured PC's as it came from many IP addresses but was the same spam text fragment, though with some variation, such as replacing all the doublequote characters with html quote - something a robot would do reliably but too much trouble for a human. Perhaps the spam filter needs to be enhanced to prevent multiple edits that have the same fragment of text (or URL's) being added to multiple pages by anonymous users, even if they are different users. E.g If you post a URL, it cannot be the same URL as has been posted within the last 5 minutes (say) as any URL posted by any other anonymous user. -- Huttite 00:13, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

Spam that is listed on the blacklist has been repeatedly added to the Talk:Taipei and other articles today. Evan may need to check to see if something is possibly not working properly. -- Ryan 17:44, 12 Feb 2006 (EST)

To 'www' or not to 'www'?[edit]

Any preference on whether or not the "www" part of the URL should be included in these listings? Since it's really tough to imagine that there would ever be a valid travel-related use of something like "" should the "www" always be dropped? -- Wrh2 21:27, 15 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I've dropped the "www" from all listings on this page. -- Wrh2 21:23, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)[edit] seems to be a valid Portugese web service, but someone has spammed Paris/2nd arrondissement and Paris/16th arrondissement using sub-domains (now blocked) of that site. -- Wrh2 18:39, 15 Jul 2005 (EDT)[edit] showed up on the main page tonight even though it's been listed on the blacklist for quite some time. Oddly though, other addresses get blocked. -- Wrh2 02:38, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT) has also been popping up repeatedly despite have been blacklisted for a while now. -- Wrh2 19:10, 20 Aug 2005 (EDT) is being blocked now -- Huttite 23:00, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)

Spam blacklist weakness[edit]

Spam blacklist would block following link:, but not http://qia<!--x-->, which can produce perfectly valid spam link: --JanSlupski 06:18, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I'm not sure that matters though -- aren't most spammers just trying to improve their Google ranking? I don't think search spiders will parse out comments from links (although I could be wrong). Are any spammers actually creating links with comments in them? -- Wrh2 15:57, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Well, they do not put comments in links (yet). Just signaled the potential problem I've spotted. As to ranking -- problem is that Mediawiki engine outputs clean link (without comments in it). Just see HTML source of qiangzhe_cn link. --JanSlupski 19:07, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
I didn't catch that Mediawiki stripped the comment from the address. Hopefully the spammers that are smart enough to pick up on this issue are also smart enough to understand that Google won't rank anything with the rel="nofollow" parameter. Hopefully. -- Wrh2 20:49, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Spam HTML[edit]

I notice that a lot of spam is associated with HTML DIV tags using a style setting to hide the links. So I added style\=\"overflow\:\ auto\;\ height\:\ 1px;" to the list. -- Huttite 23:05, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)

This appears to block the text <div style="overflow: auto; height: 1px;">. -- Huttite 23:09, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)
A side effect of this is that I think I have confrmed that the spam filter will block spam text as well as spam URL's. Though when adding text to the list you might need to put a "\" in front of some (each special?) characters to ensure the spam filter doesn't block itself. -- 23:28, 5 Jan 2006 (EST)

Problem with geocities links[edit]

I can't figure out what the problem is or how to fix it or work around it (and I'm almost out of time for now).

Please see these 3 edits/summaries:

The "message" is: Internal error

From Wikitravel
The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site. '' -> '\bgeocities\.com\b'

And same message again when posting the above without putting an HTML comment in the middle of the URL.

There are two blacklists in use, this one and an unseen common blacklist that is shared with other Wikis. You can try adding the geocities URL in question to the Wikitravel:Local spam whitelist, although I can't see that there would ever be a link at geocities that would be in accordance with the Wikitravel:External links policy, so it is possible that such a change would be (quickly) reverted. You are probably better off removing any geocities links that you find. -- Ryan 17:35, 5 March 2006 (EST)
Please see - is the link I had to remove "in accordance" or not?
I've been proven wrong many times, and this is apparently yet another. Yeah, that link looks like their "official" site, although I don't know if it's worth opening up Wikitravel to the myriad attempted spams from geocities in order to preserve it. You're probably fine in just removing it. -- Ryan 18:43, 5 March 2006 (EST)
It was me that originally added that accommodation (including the link in question) to the article - because I'd stayed there. It is indeed their official site, and has been for many years - it's also a very worthwhile one, as the "bookings"/"availability" page is updated daily. I can't put the link back, but obviously I'm not "fine" with just leaving it out (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to include it in the first place).
What is the "format" to whitelist - ?

Spam links[edit]

Swept in from the Pub:

I edited Albury-Wodonga but had trouble saving the page because of a "spam link" already in the page. I had to delete the link http://www.albury-wodonga .com/. But the software has blocked albury-wodonga. com because donga. com is in the black list. This is bizarre because albury-wodonga. com and donga. com are completely different. If anyone can get the link back into the article, go ahead. As you can see, I had to munge the domain just to save this page. Nurg 22:41, 9 Dec 2005 (EST)

I tried adding the problem URL to the Wikitravel:Local spam whitelist, but it seems to still not be working. Looks like a job for Evan. -- Ryan 00:18, 10 Dec 2005 (EST)
thanks. Best if the black list only blocks the donga domain, not all domains ending in donga. Nurg 21:13, 10 Dec 2005 (EST)

Similar problem to the above. cannot be saved - the "Internal error" message says:

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

'gb*com' -> 'gb\*com'


  • The link on the article page is not to gb*com - it's to www*cbgb*com
  • The blacklist page doesn't contain an entry for gb\*com
  • adding cbgb\*com to Wikitravel:Local_spam_whitelist doesn't seem to make any difference
  • HOWEVER adding gb\*com to Wikitravel:Local_spam_whitelist DOES make a difference
  • Still works after I removed cbgb\*com from (but with gb\*com still in place on) the whitelist
  • As soon as gb\*com is removed from the whitelist, New York (city)/East Village can no longer be saved.

Talk:Bangkok spammer and a href=[edit]

The bot spamming Talk:Bangkok with remarkable intensity always uses HTML-style a href="" links, so I've tried to add that to the spam filter -- let's see if it helps. (It certainly seems to block my first attempt to write this!) Jpatokal 04:24, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

Winner! -- Colin 20:52, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

In the same spirit I've added \[links\:all\] to hopefully stop another persistent bot that spam's User talk:Mark and Wikitravel talk:Copyright details


It might be a bit extreme blocking all of blogspot due to one spammer, but the Wikitravel:External links policy specifically indicates not to link to blogs and journals, so hopefully this won't block any legitimate contributions. -- Ryan 00:00, 14 April 2006 (EDT)

It might make it hard to point to one's blog from a user page though. Contrariwise we could just individually whitelist those. -- Colin 00:19, 14 April 2006 (EDT)
There was one user page that linked to blogspot, and adding that specific url to the whitelist didn't allow me to add it to a page, so I've reverted this addition to the more specific spam URL. We've had problems with the whitelist before, so if that issue is ever resolved then adding to the spam list again would be good. -- Ryan 00:30, 14 April 2006 (EDT)
Yeah, the whitelist is kind of unintuitive -- it doesn't really do what I wanted. It only works if you're comparing the exact match from the blacklists, so if you just have "" on the blacklist, then the match is "", and a whitelist item like "" won't match it. You'd need "\" on the blacklist, so that the match would be "".
One of my TODO items is to move us to using [SpamBlacklist], which works a lot the same, but doesn't have a whitelist. It does, however, concentrate entirely on URLs (which our BannedContent extension does not), so the implied semantics ("don't save if the URL matches one of the blacklist regexes, unless the URL matches one of the whitelist regexes") would work correctly. --Evan 10:14, 14 April 2006 (EDT)
This is somewhat unrelated, but if you are considering updating the spam filter you may also want to take a look at Wikitravel:Feature requests#Include last edit on spam filter failure page. I've seen grumbles from other users, and I know I've been bitten when making a change, saving, and then losing my changes when the spam filter triggers. -- Ryan 13:53, 14 April 2006 (EDT)

Last spam attack[edit]

Can someone check if this [73] took care of this [74] ? — Ravikiran 15:57, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

The instructions say the list has to be sorted, so I've done that. - Todd VerBeek 16:07, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Page protection[edit]

Twice tonight an IP that has been responsible for spam in the past has blanked this page. As a proactive measure, I'd like to get people's opinions about protecting this page in the future if (and only if) spammers begin removing URLs from it for the purposes of spamming the site. My thinking is that if spammers begin removing URLs the spam filter then becomes much less useful, and aside from page protection there is no other way to prevent that from happening. To be clear, I don't think we need to do this yet, but if we see spammers updating this page to then allow spamming of the site it would be good to have agreed that this page should then be protected. Thoughts? -- Ryan 04:51, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

I wouldn't be against this only if the level of protection isn't raised to sysop so our great users can help maintain the oage. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 05:00, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
We've got an anonymous user who seems intent on removing a link without discussion, and at least on shared he has also been adding competitor's links. It may be time to re-visit protecting this page against anonymous edits, which I would be in favor of. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

External links abuse - blocking repeat offenders[edit]

copied from User_talk:Wrh2#Spam_blacklist_revert:

Spam blacklist revert [75]

I didn't realise that travel guides should not be included. There are other travel-related sites already on the list, and I didn't read anything saying "don't add travel guides (etc)" so I presumed it was OK to add more. Has this been discussed somewhere already? ~ 12:49, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

Take a look at some of the discussions on Wikitravel talk:Spam filter. In general we try to use the spam filter to stop automated spambots, not to enforce Wikitravel:External links. Travel related sites that are on the list were place there, in general, as a way to get the attention of someone who repeatedly added links to articles and ignored comments on their talk page and in the edit summaries. -- Ryan 12:59, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
So it's OK to add a site if it's a non-primary source and/or otherguide which should never be linked to from any Wikitravel article anyway and it's a repeat offender? ~ 14:08, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
I'm not sure if the policy is clear on that - it might be best to discuss on Wikitravel talk:Local spam blacklist. My feeling is that the spam list is to stop spambots, and should only be used for non-spambots when other efforts at getting someone's attention have failed. Feel free to copy this thread to Wikitravel talk:Local spam blacklist if you'd like to solicit the opinions of others. -- Ryan 14:19, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
Thread copied and opinions solicited. ~ 14:33, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
Just to re-iterate, I'm strongly opposed to using the spam list as a way to enforce Wikitravel:External links, except in extreme cases. Most users who add external links here mean well, and we should be working with them to help them understand why their links may be inappropriate. The spam list should (IMHO) only be used for automated spamming or for users who simply refuse to follow Wikitravel:External links after repeated attempts to get their attention. Adding a non-spambot link to this list should be a last resort. -- Ryan 16:25, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
I agree with Ryan. -- Colin 16:27, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
I completely agree with Ryan, which by default means I also agree with Colin. The blacklist should only be used for non-automated spammers (or confused business owners) after a detailed explanation of policy has been left on the user's talk page and possibly an email. -- Sapphire 15:09, 29 September 2006 (EDT)

Blocking spam based on CSS[edit]

A favorite tactic of spammers recently seems to be using the CSS "display : none" to hide any links that they add. Is there any downside to adding that pattern to the spam list? I can't think of a reason why we would ever use that CSS in a Wiki article. -- Ryan 15:07, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

I can't think of any purpose for CSS of any sort in an article. -- Colin 18:44, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
I don't even know what CSS stands for. -- Sapphire 19:10, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
"Crafty Spam Sender". Yeah, good idea to block that stuff, Ryan. --Evan 19:38, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
Done. Andrew - see CSS (heh, "crafty spam sender") is a web standard that allows fine-grained control of things like font size, color, margin width, and other display values for a web page. The "display : none" CSS directive simply means "don't make this text visible", which is a trick spammers use to hide their links while still allowing Google and other search engines to find them in the source code. -- Ryan 19:48, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
So, I know this is an old discussion, but it might be worth noting that apparently some templates written on Wikipedia use "display: none" for some logic. I don't think it's likely, but it's possible that a Wikitraveller could copy such a template verbatim to Wikitravel, and get rejected. That said, it seems to be a deprecated practice and this seems like it's not worth worrying about. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HiddenStructure. --Evan 20:06, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

I kicked the spam bot's as*![edit]

A spam bot that Ryan had blocked for 6 hours went on blitzkreig of EN, Shared, and several other language versions, however, I, almighty and all-knowing created a localized spam blacklist identical to the English version's Wikitravel:Local spam blacklist. I've effectively stopped the spam bot, for now. All versions have the same protection, but each list should be automatically as users manually update the lists to protect against various spam attacks. Any of you programmers want to make an attempt at a bot that keeps all the blacklists updated? -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 18:30, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

What if there were a "shared" spamlist that all the other WT versions used as a fallback? That way, updating it on shared: would protect all the language versions. --Evan 20:03, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

Another loop hole[edit]

So spammers have resorted to using "<p style="position:absolute;left:-400000px;height:1px;">" to hide spam. Any reason why we can't include this <p style= in the spam blacklist? -- Sapphire 00:29, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

I don't think we want to stop people from using style tags with paragraphs, but the "left:400000px" pattern seems to be coming up a lot lately, so let's add that. -- Ryan 18:27, 23 October 2006 (EDT)


In an effort to block the various viagara-for-you and sites I've added http\:\/\/viagara to the spam list - I can't imagine it's likely we'll ever need to link to a viagara site, so this might be a useful catch-all. Or not, feel free to revert. -- Ryan 02:45, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Similarly I've added the pattern "cheap—xanax", which I can't imagine would ever be needed in a Wikitravel article. -- Ryan 11:23, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Yet another - "chat—video", which should only appear in URLs. -- Ryan 02:28, 31 December 2006 (EST)
...and "onlinecasino". -- Ryan 20:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)
Let's be careful around "casino", since there are a lot of destinations like Las Vegas where that's a pretty common word to use. --Evan 13:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)
I was hoping that "online"+casino would be OK since we should only be linking to physical locations, but feel free to remove that one if necessary. -- Ryan 13:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)
I think online+etc. should be fine, and I knew you knew that, I just wanted to note it for posterity here. --Evan 14:05, 25 February 2007 (EST)
...and "cash-advance". That one could conceivably appear in a valid URL, so please remove if necessary. -- Ryan 10:36, 31 January 2007 (EST)
...I've just gone through and updated several patterns of the form "" to simply be "obvious-spam". I don't see any downside, and this would hopefully catch those spammers that use the same terms in a lot of different domains. As always, feel free to revert if this change causes any problems. -- Ryan 22:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)

a href pattern[edit]

The a href pattern currently blocks users from editing language files like Wikitravel:LanguageZh_tw.php... Jpatokal 23:09, 11 February 2007 (EST)

I don't particularly care for or against the a href pattern block, but shouldn't language files be moved to Shared anyway? -- Sapphire 23:23, 11 February 2007 (EST)
We get a LOT of spam that is blocked by the href pattern. The flip side is that the language files and a few of the Mediawiki: message files contain that pattern. Is it sufficient to just remove the pattern when editing those files, which shouldn't need to occur very often? Are there any other alternatives that will block spammers such as Special:Contributions/ -- Ryan 23:35, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Myer Centre[edit]

So a robot or really really persistent person keeps adding these precise words to the Brisbane article:

My#er Cen#tre - Shopping centre visitors are warned to watch their food and drinks at all times, it's not just enough to be sitting next to them. Also, keep an eye out for strange people, you might be attacked

I tried adding "My#er\ Cen#tre\ -\ Shopp#ing\ ce#ntre\ patrons" to the blacklist, but it's not working. How should spaces be entered? Jpatokal 21:43, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Could someone explain what were doing with the new patterns for the Myer Centre? More specifically what does "*" and "(Foo|Foo|Foo)" do to the filter? -- Sapphire(Talk) • 13:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Regular expressions match patterns, so for example the pattern "iamspam" would match, um, "iamspam". There are also characters within regular expressions that have special meaning, so "." means "match any character" and "*" means "match zero or more occurrences of the previous pattern. Finally, parentheses are a way of grouping patterns, and "|" basically means "or". The end result is that something like:
will match "Pattern1 and lots of text Pattern2" or "Pattern1 and lots of text Pattern3" or "Pattern1Pattern2", etc. There is a more lengthy and detailed explanation at Wikipedia:Regular expression if you've got time to kill. -- Ryan 13:15, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

To the user(s) who continue reverting the addition of Encyclopedia Dramatica, that site has appeared numerous times on Wikitravel as spam, most noticeably on the Main Page (see the history for mid-March 2007). If there's a valid argument to be made as to why it shouldn't be considered spam please discuss, but until a consensus is reached to remove it then it should stay on the list. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Only ever appeared twice as spam. Please remove it. 23:16, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
The spam list is used in rare cases to block legitimate sites that are added to Wikitravel as spam. The edit history of the various users who have wanted to add this link to Wikitravel matches that of many of the other contributors who have added links that are now on the spam list, and there isn't really any valid use of this link for travel, so my inclination is that there still isn't any persuasive argument why the link should be removed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
Sorry "Tay", but you're still on my vandals list so I say we don't remove it because the url has been used to vandalize Wikitravel and the requester has shown no respect toward the project. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 23:43, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
There is no reason to remove it. Gorilla Jones 00:41, 8 August 2007 (EDT)


This URL has shown up in articles for at least a half dozen Florida cities (see Special:Contributions/ and been reverted repeatedly over the past few days. As far as I can tell it doesn't meet the criteria set out in Wikitravel:Accommodation listings#Apartment listings, and the user is not responding to a message on his talk page. If the user ever responds and a resolution is reached then it should be safe to remove this from the blacklist. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Goodevening, I am writing in to ask for this url to be removed from your blacklist. It was added to several florida accommodation sections where the website offers villa and accommodation rentals direct from the owner. It is not an agency and so it was felt that it complied with the wikipedia regulations based on its similarity to other websites that were listed. If this is not the case then please receive our apologies and the site will not be added again. Thank you for your assistance.

I'll remove the link, but please read Wikitravel:Accommodation listings#Apartment listings. That guideline lays out the criteria that have been agreed-upon to allow editors to determine when an apartment or rental listing should be kept in an article. Most sites run afoul of the "must have a physical address where renters can pick up the keys and talk to an employee to resolve any issues". If your site meets that criteria please include the address when adding your service to articles, and it will be less likely to be reverted in the future. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:22, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. Kindly also remove the website from the blacklist at:


This might be the official site, but it seems to be hopelessly compromised. Just visiting that site I got a virus notification. I am adding it back. — Ravikiran 04:49, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Can you give me more specific information about the virus? I'll call the CVB. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 04:53, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Don't want to get into trouble with the information security folks at my office by visiting a compromised site again, don't dare to visit it at home, where I have less protection. But you can still let them know about all the porn people seem to be able to upload easily. — Ravikiran 05:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so I emailed them and apparently something similar happened a few weeks back and they were told that everything was taken care of, but obviously that was wrong. They said they'd keep me up-to-date so when everything's fixed we can add the link back in. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 02:31, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

blocking numbers[edit]

Is there any way that tel numbers can be blocked? One group of persistent spammers have obviously been studying cuckoos: They kick out a phone number on the sleep section and replace it with one of their own company numbers. Otherwise, they just add a number next to an incomplete hotel listing. WindHorse 10:11, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Sure, some of their numbers have already been added to the blacklist. Jpatokal 11:45, 16 June 2007 (EDT)[edit]

Following the creation of a user talk page by a spambot, I added z\.la to the blacklist [76] as it looks like a style URL-alias service (see also Unfortunately this would also block (for example) so in theory it could cause problems with a valid link. Maybe for this one it would be better to block http\:\/\/(www\.)?z\.la - ? ~ 14:05, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

http\:\/\/(www\.)?z\.la is now in place and I've confirmed that it blocks both http:|| and http:|| (where || is really //) and tested a few samples that it shouldn't block [77] and everything looks OK. I'm leaving it in, if it causes any problems then remove it. ~ 15:44, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Non-obvious spam[edit]

The spam list is generally used to stop spambots, but it is also occasionally used to stop persistent abusers of Wikitravel:External links. I don't know if we need to make it a policy, but it would be hugely helpful if a comment was left on this talk page when adding links that fall into the second category. Something as simple as " was added to the spam list due to repeated spamming of USA articles while ignoring messages left on the talk page." An earlier discussion indicated a preference for using the spam list to block external link policy violators only as a last resort, so leaving a message here will let other editors know why the link is being listed and what action might be necessary before it could be removed from this list. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)


The majority of the automated spam seems to be porn & online pharmacies, with the occasional ringtone spam thrown in for good measure. Based on last night's hit on the Budapest article I've tried to create a few patterns that catch most of the pharmacy spam. I don't think we would have any valid edits of the "drug-name-online" form, but if anyone runs into any problems please revert the necessary patterns. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:28, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Spam filter... ouch... PLEASE HELP[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Someone has put something into the spam filter regex in LocalSettings.php (I think) without first removing all instances of that something from all pages and namespaces of This is bad because it causes the next person who tries to edit a page containing that something to be unable to save his edit, even if his edit has nothing to do with something. The person putting this something into the spam filter regex is in a much better position to remove instances of something from the site because he knows what something is and no one else knows this something. I hate it when this happens. I figure everyone hates it when this happens. Hope this helps. :-) Rogerhc 18:54, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Wikitravel:Travellers' pub is currently blocked to further edits by something. --Rogerhc 18:56, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
I've reverted recent spam filter changes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:01, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Maybe a policy of removing instances of something from all Wikitravel pages before putting it into the spam regex would be in order. :-)Rogerhc 19:33, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, I think that goes without saying, but the problem here was a user was attempting to prevent spam, however, as a result, when a page displayed certain numbers in a certain configuration it was automatically blocked. As an example, we were unable to edit the Cincinnati guide because '24 was used in the guide and the user attempted to block the spammer (who would paste seemingly random phone numbers into guides). -- Sapphire(Talk) • 21:08, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
The Cincinnati problem occurred when I tested something on one of the spammed eight-digit 'phone numbers where the same numbers in the same order appear in the following line of the Cincinnati guide: 28 W. Fourth Street" directions="Downtown, Inside Carew Tower" phone="+1-(513)-241-4104" email= "" fax="" url="" hours="Monday - Saturday 17:30 - 23:00 (bar opens at 16:45); Sunday 1
The spammer doesn't use random numbers, however it does look like he might sometimes be typing his numbers in incorrectly ~ 00:03, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

The "problem" with this page was that the Phone number spam section included a list of the spammed 'phone numbers and the associated URL; I've removed them. ~ 23:13, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to say that I am seriously considering nominating as an administrator. --Peter Talk 00:42, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
Too bad IPs can't be given any kind of elevated status. That said, I know exactly who is. Unfortunately, his/her IP keeps changing. If I am not mistaken, he/she is residing in Bangkok and has done thousands and thousands of useful edits. If it weren't for the fact that he/she hasn't signed up for an account he/she might be an administrator. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 01:08, 18 June 2007 (EDT)


Is it time to semi-protect the page? There's not much need for anon users to edit the blacklist... Jpatokal 22:05, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

See #Page protection above. With one notable exception anonymous edits to this page have been primarily disruptive, so requiring a login seems like a reasonable way to help those of us who patrol the site. In addition, it provides an easy avenue to give feedback to someone who makes a change to the list, an option we don't really have with anonymous users. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:40, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to support this, though I'm not a contributor on en:... -- Tatata 22:52, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
I don't see the sense in allowing anon users to edit the blacklist. Gorilla Jones 23:42, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Do NOY sprotect. I will not allow abusive users to revert my edits any longer. 00:22, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Sucks to be you, 'cause it's now semi-protected =P Jpatokal 00:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
I have changed my mind, ED shouldn't be on the list. JpatokaI 00:35, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Good to see you changed your mind. I hope you revert anyone adding it, Kike 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Ooh, it's my evil doppelganger Jpatoka-Capital-I! Nice try, but if you keep being a complete dickhead about this, we'll just ask Evan to move ED (erectile dysfunction?) to the hardcoded non-editable list. Jpatokal 01:11, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The Chiang Mai article contains a valid link to www . pornpinghotelchiangmai . com which the blacklist is blocking. ~ 07:39, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

Any reason for this not to be listed at Wikitravel:Protected pages? ~ 05:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

You're just one step ahead of me 203 ;), I've listed this protection there now. --Peter Talk 05:11, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
As the person in question has now switched from anonymous edits and is now logging in to make the exact same edits, hasn't the block on unregistered users proved itself pointless? ~ 05:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Not pointless, the blacklist, as far as I can tell, was taking abuse from more than just one user. Requiring a log in provides no hard security, but it does at least slow abuse down by requiring an additional step (soft security at work) and moreover, as Ryan notes above, we like to be able to communicate with each other about maintaining the blacklist, which is made difficult by dynamic ip addresses. --Peter Talk 05:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)


see also shared:Tech:En blacklist not working

ifrance\.com is on the blacklist but isn't being blocked - September 1st 2007 example - why? Can someone please fix this? ~ 09:49, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

It was being blocked a few days ago. -- Sapphire
but it's not being blocked now (see example cited above) - correct? ~ 10:11, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
I took a look at this and didn't see anything amiss. I set up a sandbox page and tried to enter ifrance links (including some from the September 1 Budapest page referenced) and they were all rejected. if this continues to happen, let me know and I'll see if I can't find out what's happening. KevinSours 18:07, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Still not working - approx 110 occurrences of ifrance . com in this edit (01:10, 7 October 2007) Sorry, ignore that - the spambot edit in question was to the local spam blacklist page, and while it didn't overwrite it, I guess it may be the reason the blacklist didn't block the edit. ~ 09:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)


This one was added due to repeated spamming of Talk:Main Page. It's unclear whether it was a spambot doing to the spamming, so if for some reason this site needs to be removed from the blacklist in the future then those requesting removal should first read Wikitravel:External links and then explain why the site is applicable to Wikitravel on this talk page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:11, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

desigbarcelona & desigmadrid[edit]

These links have been reverted nightly for the past three or four days, and messages have been left on the user's talk page. The additions may or may not meet the criteria in Wikitravel:Accomodation listings#Apartment listings, but the listings also list the URL at least three times, which appears to solely be an attempt to increase Google page rank and thus is inappropriate. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:37, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

currenttimeindia dot com[edit]

This link was added to hundreds of articles today, and it is obviously not in accordance with Wikitravel:External links. Added to the spam list to hopefully prevent that from happening again. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Help regarding the Spam Filter[edit]

Swept in from the pub - NJR_ZA 16:26, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi all. I am trying to edit Red Centre, but each time I try to save my edit I get the following message

Edit conflict: Red Centre
The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

followed by a porn related string...

which is not really what I am trying to post in the first place....

It only happens for edits on Red Centre, and whatever the edit I try to save I keep getting this message.

A bit of help would be most welcome Tensaibuta 08:58, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

There's a link to www. which is being blocked by the www\.ass filter
I've added assoa\.nt\.edu\.au to the whitelist. Right now it's still blocked but that could be something to do with cacheing. ~ 09:18, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, it seems to work Tensaibuta 09:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Temp entries that should be removed again[edit]

The following revisions have been added to frustrate the efforts of a vandal, they should be removed again when the thread have passed:

  • (cur) (last) 2007-10-07T12:42:02 NJR ZA (Talk | contribs | block) (15,014 bytes) (combat vandal) [rollback]
  • (cur) (last) 2007-10-07T12:38:54 NJR ZA (Talk | contribs | block) (14,983 bytes) (combat vandal)

--NJR_ZA 06:52, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Rollback/Undo and the Blacklist[edit]

Is is possible for the Rollback and Undo functions to also check against the blacklist? This will remove the possibility that a vandal can revert/rollback to his/her vandalized version of a page after it has been fixed and the graffiti content added to the blacklist. --NJR_ZA 07:01, 7 October 2007 (EDT)


moved to here from Wikitravel:Travellers' pub#Seek help patrolling edits, possibly by hotel chain

Hi folks. User: has made a couple dozen edits around Sept 20-21. The edits to Seattle#Splurge and San Francisco#Splurge added mention of hotels that are part of the Epoque Hotels group. The edits are reasonable, but have a bit too much sales language, and are copied verbatim from the Epoque Hotels web site. I wonder if the user might be working for Epoque Hotels. I'd appreciate it of others could join me in reviewing the edits to be sure they are OK. I've left a welcome message on User talk:, encouraging them to read Wikitravel:Welcome, business owners and create a user name. JimDeLaHunt 16:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Though not in response to the above, I noticed many edits by this user and they appear to be a booking site. Primary links for most of the hotels are available, but of course they use their own URL. I left notice on the IP User page asking for explanation, but got no answer. I'm wondering at what point we add them to Wikitravel:Local spam blacklist. -- OldPine 20:05, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
I think it's been long enough without a response or change in behavior, so IMO this is a serial spammer, and we should add it to the blacklist. --Peter Talk 22:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
This page -- www.epoquehotels DOT com/company.html -- describes their company. Looks legit to me. Annoying as hell, but legit. -- Colin 22:20, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't know where we're drawing the line here, but these guys appear to be a marketing shell for hotels that join up, not hotel owners. This page -- www.epoquehotels DOT com/hotelinfo.html -- asks, "Do you wish to join Epoque Hotels with your property?". As such, I believe they are just booking aggregators. -- OldPine 13:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: added to local spam blacklist 5 October 2007

Time to remove the numbers?[edit]

Is it time to remove the number regexps? We've gotten a few false positives already, and parsing edits to large articles through those cannot possibly be improving system performance... Jpatokal 09:02, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

No objection from me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:04, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Removed [78] and recorded below for posterity:

2[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*2
2[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*7
2[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*1
2[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*1
2[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*1
2[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*7[ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*6
2[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*6[ \.\-_/]*2
2[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*1
2[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*1
3[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*6[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O]
3[ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O]
3[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*3
3[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*6[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O]
3[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*6[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*6[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*1
3[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O]
5[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*6[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*5
6[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*6[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*5
9[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*7
9[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*1
9[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*7[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*4
9[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*7[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*4[ \.\-_/]*1
9[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*1[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*9[ \.\-_/]*5
9[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*3.*1[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*2[ \.\-_/]*4[0|o|O]
9[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*3[ \.\-_/]*5[ \.\-_/]*[0|o|O][ \.\-_/]*8[ \.\-_/]*6[ \.\-_/]*7[ \.\-_/]*3

Can these be put back in again? The problem they were preventing hasn't gone away. ~ 12:51, 25 December 2007 (EST)

BUMP! ~ 11:37, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Blacklisting Maharajah Siem Reap[edit]

So an Indian restaurant called "Maharajah" keeps inserting their pluggery into the Siem Reap and Cambodia articles, and even into Extra, for probably a dozen times now. They've ignoring any talk attempts, and from independent accounts the restaurant actually seems pretty bad (somebody complained that the paneer cheese they use was stale). OK to remove the listing and blacklist their URL? Jpatokal 00:43, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Blacklisted things in the "Summary" field[edit]

The latest "innovation" by the spam-cretins seems to be that they put incomprehensible garbage into the article itself, but the objectionable content in the summary field that gets entered into the history log for the article. The series of anonymous spammers posting about c-e-r-o-l-i-n-e-d-o-t-i-n-f-o are taking this approach, even though the objectionable site itself is blacklisted. Is there any way to deal with this, under the current MediaWiki version? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:41, 30 November 2007 (EST)


Is there any reason to keep removing ED? I don't see anything wrong with it. L&Lfan14 20:26, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Spambot that can't spell[edit]

swept in from Wikitravel:Travellers' pub - the "deleted" word is l-a-n-g-u-a-n-g-e (without the hyphens) - now blocked: [79]

Could "I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your "deleted" is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links" be added to the blacklist? ~ 08:42, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Or maybe just the single misspelling "deleted" - anyone have any objections? ~ 06:25, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Forgive the intrusion, I've now stricken the blacklisted word from your post to unlock this page for editing. --Peter Talk 09:56, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Lost Paddle Rafting[edit]

lostpaddlerafting dot com seems to be a legitimate business, but despite requests in edit comments and on user talk pages the site has been added to everything from unrelated Colorado cities like Denver to the USA article, most recently using the edit comment "grammatical", apparently in an effort to disguise the change. There are plenty of rafting outfits in the Rockies to choose from, so I don't think it hurts us to blacklist this overly-aggressive operator. To the editor who has been adding these listings: please read Wikitravel:Don't tout, which outlines the policies for listing a business on Wikitravel. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The message below copied from User talk:Wrh2:
Hi Ryan! I apologize for posting multiple listings for my web on wiki-travel. I was so excited to discover this site I guess I got carried away with posting it to what I believed to be relevant categories. If you could please remove my site www.lostpaddlerafting dot com from the blacklist I will repost it only in the city I am located. Or, can I place it under Colorado since we operate through-out the state? Please let me know where you think it might be most appropriate and I'll place it only once. Thanks! jwick

p.s. I had to write out dot com as I am still black listed:)

I've removed this site from the blacklist, let's see how things go. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
This site appeared again today in the Colorado article... I've reverted the listing, but if problems persist then it might be worth reconsidering the blacklist removal. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:07, 20 February 2009 (EST)