See Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Praveengupta, Special:Contributions/59.94.98.234, and several others. User has spammed the Agra page and several Wikivoyage policy pages for the past several nights. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Trying to add Rexburg/Burley Idaho International Dance and Music Festival to the page. Won't add our site:

http://www.idahofolkdance (idahofolkdance "dot" com)

Please clear it for us. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 69.20.148.231 (talk • contribs)

I have no problems adding that URL. It is possible that the page you're editing has some other pattern that is triggering the blacklist unrelated to your addition, which page is it? -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 12:12, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Persistently re-adding advertisements to many articles in Dalmatia, no response to warnings or temporary blocks. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 12:07, 10 March 2012 (EST)

The real reason why we have made ​​many changes in the articles is because we wanted to insert a text more suitable for you in the service offered. Please remove the block for adriatic-express and enter that in context in a way appropriate to our service. best regards, adriatic-express —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Adriatic.express (talk • contribs)

You were asked many times in many ways not to add multiple listings to articles, and to not use Wikivoyage for advertising, and refused to do so and instead continued to edit war. See (for example) your talk page and this edit revert comment (amongst many). You have clearly been spamming the site and have had ample warning that such behavior would lead to blacklisting. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:42, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

Repeatedly creating new user accounts (one per article), inserting this link, and removing the xl-approved tourist authority links from the top (e.g. [1], [2]). The constant new accounts is a fairly transparent way of trying to avoid notice, so there's no one account that can be given a warning first. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 01:36, 11 March 2012 (EST)

I tried to suggest a place to see the rare glossy blacx cocxatoo (replace the x with k to get the correct meaning).

My update was rejected because it was taken as a black male's appendage. Is there a way around this?

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Derdod (talk • contribs)

I have made an attempt to change the blacklist to allow black cockatoos, black cockatiels, and even black cocktails if necessary. Give it another try! (WT-en) LtPowers 10:05, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

Thanks. All good now. (WT-en) Derdod 19:53, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

See Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Surfing.mentawai and the history for Mentawai Islands. User has been asked repeatedly not to add multiple listings and not to advertise, but to no avail. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:53, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

So far, these efforts are apparently counterproductive. The spam/touter continues to spam/tout (I just blocked that account for 1 day, but I think we should block it for quite a lot longer), and I can't even post in detail about the fact that because of the spam blacklist, I can't revert or roll back their latest spam/touting edit. Someone, please fix this. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 23:15, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, I temporarily reverted the addition of this site to the spam blacklist, then was able to revert the latest spam/touting, and then reverted my own edit. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 23:19, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

Sorry, I didn't notice that the blacklisted email was already in the article. That listing has now been removed. As to the user in question, they will eventually wander off, although it's definitely frustrating when someone returns multiple times each day over a period of weeks. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:28, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

Several additional terms were added to the blacklist as a result of this user. See Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Handra harbi, Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Surfing.mentawai, Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Ebaysurfcamp and Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Mentawai trekking for history. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:18, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

See Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Nizam. This is about as blatant as a spammer can be, and user has been warned several times not to continue. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:48, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

See Special:Contributions/2.231.6.115 and Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Easy-Kiev.com. User has been given several pointers to the rental listing guidelines and is still returning multiple times a day to add this listing to the Kiev article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:08, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

Sorry I'm new here and I didn't read carefully guidelines. I simply didn't understand why my add was deleted, and tried to write again. Give, if possible another, chance. User:(WT-en) Easy-Kiev.com; 14:09 9 May 2012 (CET)

I removed them again. Also, links to kievis dot com are being put in the article despite requests to stop. (WT-en) Jjtk 13:51, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Excuse me and why this time? "Kievis dot com" is not related with "Easy-Kiev dot com". My edit didn't contain any link. I read all rules one by one: I didn't tout, I put announce in alphabetical order...I would really like to know the reason of deletion. User:(WT-en) Easy-Kiev; 16:02 17 July 2012 (CET)

It appears it was removed for 2 reasons. The listing was mainly recommending apartments to travellers; this is not allowed per Apt, unless in circumstances where it is agreed on the article's talk page. You could start a discussion there, but I believe it is highly unlikely apartments would be approved for the Kiev article because there's so many hotels. Secondly, your website (Easy-Kiev) seems to be a "database" of various topics and services in Kiev, like apartments, taxis, interpreters, tourist info, etc. Per Xl, we do not link to these unless they are government sources. (WT-en) JamesA ^>talk 09:19, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Exactly. And 'kievis dot com' is just another issue I wanted to bring to admins' attention. (WT-en) Jjtk 09:27, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

But if flats listings are not approved in Kiev, what about "Kiev Apartments" and "Apart Hotel". These companies offer exactly the same kind of service of "Easy-Kiev". Different rules for them? User:(WT-en) Easy-Kiev; 19:37 17 July 2012 (CET)

Nope. They gone. (WT-en) Jjtk 02:49, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Swept in from the pub.

I am not sure how to nominate a URL for a nuisance ban. There is one (or perhaps more than one) anonymous user, from at least 2 IPs, who has repeatedly substituted the commercial website, http://bahamasbahamasbahamas.com/, for the official website of Bahamas Tourism in the Bahamas article. The aforementioned web address is the site for the Bimini Bay Resort, whose entry I will now delete from the Bimini guide, as promised, but given the repeated misbehavior of people presumably associated with this resort, I think it would be a good idea to blacklist all sites associated with that resort, site-wide. I welcome your feedback. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:18, 28 December 2011 (EST)

If the site is against policy, and being repeatedly added, then Project:Local spam blacklist may be appropriate. --(WT-en) Inas 17:41, 2 January 2012 (EST)

Mates, it seems that a big bunch of WT spammers found our new cozy place here... Most advertise for fancy shoes or lady bags? Would any oppose if i add some labels likes loubotin and gucci on the spam list? Jc8136 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2012 (CEST)

There is also a pattern of two spam accounts being created within one minute of each other and then both of them laying dormant for 32 days. -- (WV-en) Alice^✉ 09:54, 26 October 2012 (CEST)

Gucci? Won't it also thwart a well-meaning contributor speaking of shopping options as well? — Ravikiran (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2012 (CEST)

@Ravikiran: The shoe label is the most listed spam, closely followed by bags. I'm not a big fan of name dropping in our buy section but i wanted to discuss it before i add it. Jc8136 (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2012 (CEST)

@Alice/Frank: That's a longstanding WT spammer that sadly found our new place. As we suspect good faith for everyone, their first edit is the only reason to block/stop them. Jc8136 (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2012 (CEST)

Swept in from the pub

I'm from the anti-spam collaboration on en.wp, but my anti-spam efforts are not restricted to that wiki. For those unfamiliar with the anti-spam infrastructure used on Wikimedia wikis, here's a brief summary of how it works.

Linkwatcher bots

External link additions are reported by linkwatcher bots (with a ~1 min delay) to #cvn-sw-spam on Freenode and stored in a database containing link additions to Wikimedia wikis. More information on this process is available at m:Small Wiki Monitoring Team/IRC. This means those watching out for cross-wiki spam, myself included, will be looking out for you.

Cross-wiki spam

You can use my cross-wiki linksearch tool to check for cross-wiki link spam -- select "major Wikimedia projects" from the drop-down box. This will perform a Special:Linksearch on the {en, fr, de} Wikivoyages and other major projects. (I can add one or two more languages, but no more due to Google App Engine restrictions). If you notice any substantial cross-wiki spam, please report it at m:Talk:Spam blacklist for global blacklisting.

Spam blacklists

Wikimedia uses mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist for spam filtering. The global spam blacklist is located at m:Spam blacklist. Global blacklisting prevents the link from being inserted into any Wikimedia wiki. The global blacklist is already in effect on Wikivoyage but your local blacklists are currently not working (proof - this link matches aaalimos on Wikivoyage:Local spam blacklist). To fix this, please move Wikivoyage:Local spam blacklist to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and Wikivoyage:Local spam whitelist to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist.

If you have any questions regarding spam, don't hesitate to ask. Finally, a query like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=iwbacklinks&iwblprefix=wikitravel&iwbllimit=500 will list the pages that use the wikitravel interwiki on a particular wiki without mojibake. MER-C (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Our blacklist previously checked everything in an edit, not just text within URLs. (This once caused a problem with someone wishing to write about the glossy black cockatoo [3].) Will this still be the case? Also, the syntax seems different; can we include templates and raw text at the top of the blacklist such as what we have on Wikivoyage:Local spam blacklist? LtPowers (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, the spam blacklist only operates on external links (including edit summaries). The mw:Extension:AbuseFilter (see also w:Wikipedia:Edit filter) and MediaWiki setting mw:Manual:$wgSpamRegex can be used to prevent the insertion of arbitrary text into a wiki. All blacklists take regular expressions. You can include text at the top of a page by commenting it out with a #. It is parsed to some extent (see w:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist), but to what extent I do not know. MER-C (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I almost forgot about Luxo's cross-wiki contributions tool, which does exactly what it says on the tin (Wikivoyage appears to be a little broken). MER-C (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Wikitravel has a fairly appaling spam problem. [4] Presumably those bozos will hit here soon. Pashley (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Links to this company are being plastered across all manner of Western US articles from a variety of IP editors. See Wikivoyage:Don't tout. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ryan I am a employee of this business invertsports dot com and just thought it was very helpful to let fellow travelers know that we offer travel services they may be interested in. Our company services 13 western states and over 300 lakes, rivers and reservoirs. It's hard finding companies that offer watercraft services at many lakes and I think it would be helpful on their vacation as I have run into the same situation. If invertsports dot com could be removed from the violations that would be great! However if that not an option, thats understandable it's wiki website so they can do what they want. —The preceding comment was added by 208.54.4.177 (talk • contribs)

I am prohibited from making ANY changes to Patong, which is in sore need of editing. I tried to make minor changes to "Orientation". Seligne (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be editable now. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanx much! Seligne (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

It seems that pretty much every external link in Buffalo is now blocked by the spam filter. I am unable to edit the article because of a long list of benign URL's that found their way onto the blacklist, none of which have ever been a problem in the past. Please advise.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ditto for Cincinnati.

--Neilworms (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

This was the same issue User:Seligne encountered (above). Apparently any article that contains "http://http" (without the HTML comment) is now triggering the spam filter. This might be one for the bot writers - if it was possible to generate a list of all pages that trigger the spam filter, or to seek-and-destroy anything with the aforementioned pattern in it, it would be much appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Given the potentially large number of affected articles I've removed the following patterns. If we see an increase in spam volume and someone can figure out why the double http pattern above triggered these, please fix and restore.

([\[]?http[s]?://[^ \n\t\.]+\.[^ \n\t]+[\]]?[ \n\t]+){5,} ((\[https?://(\S*\.)+\S+\ .*\]\s*)|(\[\[https?://(\S*\.)+\S+\ .*\]\]\s*)|(https?://(\S*\.)+\S+\s+)){5,} 

-- Ryan • (talk) • 20:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The blacklist has gotten pretty long and could stand some trimming. With the new infrastructure provided by Wikimedia we automatically inherit m:Spam blacklist, and most obvious spambots get clearly blocked, so I've trimmed some obvious spambot patterns from our list. If we have troubles with bots again they can be restored, but for now this seems like a small step towards making the list a bit more manageable.

Barring objection I'd also like to trim some patterns for problem editors who we haven't seen in years - the Bengal phone numbers seems like good candidates, as well as some of the URLs from problem contributors who we haven't seen in a long time. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I got rid of the phone numbers, as well as some other non-travel patterns in the hopes of making the blacklist a bit more manageable by eliminating obsolete patterns and patterns that are better covered by the global blacklist. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Anyone have some insight into the following problem? I tried to add an apostrophe to the word "neighborhoods," between the d and s in the "Tenderloin" section of San Francisco/Civic Center-Tenderloin and was instead given the error message that "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http:// www dot luggage store gallery dot org. The funny thing is, a search of the spam blacklist turned up no such site, nor anything like it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The blacklist includes the local blacklist and the global blacklist (hosted at meta I think). Odds are that the luggage store is globally blacklisted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 08:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why is the placement of a freakin apostrophe blocked by a spam blacklist? It's bizarre and annoying. But I'm not an admin at Meta, so I'll just try rewording to get around the problem. Thanks for the explanation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I tried substituting "area apostrophe s" and got the same damn error message, and for good measure, I eliminated the word entirely, trying the text "which are attracted by the low rents and proximity to downtown" and got the error message again. So the page is effectively read-only? Could someone who is able to edit the spam filter at Meta please help? Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wait, I see that the Luggage Store Gallery is listed in the guide under "Museums and galleries," so that's the actual problem. I'm not sure why, though; it seems like a perfectly legitimate listing. I don't really want to edit the page because I undoubtedly won't be able to reinsert the listing. Is there a possibility of an exception rule for this particular page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't find it on m:Spam blacklist either. No "luggage" anywhere in the file. The article has been edited several times since we moved to WMF, most recently on February 7, so the culprit is likely a recently-added pattern that was improperly formed and is resulting in a false positive. I'll keep looking. LtPowers (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I definitely don't know what it was, but this is what our whitelist is for [5], right? Problem solvedish. --Peter ^Talk 19:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I had forgotten about the whitelist. Thanks for fixing the problem! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I had to remove (valid) Roxelana hostel link to be able to save changes in Lviv article. Don't know what to do now. Jjtk (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can't add what seem to be a valid official tourism website to Daugavpils article. Jjtkk (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

You'll have to give us more to go on. LtPowers (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's this website you find when you type "visit Daugavpils" in a search engine and it can't be added to the article because it's blocked by the spam filter. Jjtkk (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I've tracked it down. It's not blacklisted here. visitdaugavpils.lv (see how easy it is?) is explicitly listed on the global blacklist, m:Spam blacklist. As you can see here, it was added in February 2007 after an IP address inserted it into multiple Wikipedias' articles on the city. It's probably safe to remove it; adding it was likely an overreaction anyway. I've made a request on the global blacklist talk page to have it removed. LtPowers (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

http://www.visitdaugavpils.lv has been removed from the blacklist; you should be able to add it to the Daugavpils article now. LtPowers (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

We're having problems with this link in the Khotan guide, as shown here [6] and here [7]. Unless anyone can think of a possible reason we'd ever want that link in any article, and unless blacklisting it is likely to lead to problems with the words "Xinjiang" and "travel," I think we should blacklist it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've added it to the blacklist. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

We're having problems with this spam/touting link in the Sardinia guide, as follows: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Seems like high time for blacklisting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

They're doing it again! [13] Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did you not add them to the blacklist? LtPowers (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought I had to achieve consensus before editing the blacklist. I'll try making the edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is not a heavily monitored page, and consensus would be nearly impossible to attain for every new entry. All we ask is that you leave a note explaining why you added a particular site to the blacklist. LtPowers (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll keep that in mind for future cases. Thanks, Lt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

This site is being spammed across India articles tonight. Aside from the issue of spamming us, the site is not valid for inclusion in our guides per Wikivoyage:External links as they are not a primary source ("We work with various car rental operators across the cities and make their inventory available online for the customers to book."). Message with a pointer to Wikivoyage:Don't tout was ignored - see User talk:223.239.146.71. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Biharinath article has been the target of repeated violation of Wikivoyage:Don't tout, despite revert messages and messages on anonymous user talk pages such as User talk:116.202.207.249. Blacklisted accordingly. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to add the following text to the Tallinn in the By Taxi section but the filter keeps blocking me even after I logged in. So, basically, no external links are allowed???

Users of Android phones should download the https://www.google.ee/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CGEQFjAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fplay.google.com%2Fstore%2Fapps%2Fdetails%3Fid%3Dkutsutakso.estapp%26hl%3Den&ei=SVq4UdPpF4GOtAapsoDgAQ&usg=AFQjCNHf4iilLW4kmzimYW29M9uXnndDVg&sig2=axr5jvr8KP4iEKMnc_Qcgw&bvm=bv.47810305,d.Yms Kutso Takso app which lists all taxi companies, their fares and has links allowing you to call the taxi company direct from the app. As with most people in Estonia, many taxi drivers and telephone dispatchers will speak English.

--Xania (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The same filter is even active on THIS page making it hard for people to report the actual problem which activated the spam filter in the first place. Very bad design.--Xania (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not our blacklist, but the global blacklist at meta:Spam blacklist. The pattern violated is:

\bgoogle\..*?\/url\? 

I don't know why it's blocked. But you should be able to link directly to the app on Google Play rather than going through the google.ee redirect: Kutso Takso app. LtPowers (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Repeatedly adding multiple listings to the Pemba article despite multiple pointers to Wikivoyage:Don't tout. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please, can you help removing my Web site from the blacklist! I did not read the rules and will avoid mentioning my site more than once. Thanks. Arnaud

They have repeatedly spammed India articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Added for repeated spamming in Hanoi and because it is a consolidator and, thus, not a site we would ever want to list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

in Bus travel in Israel - tried to list all the bus companies in Israel, including web links. Got blocked. Any alternative? טבעת-זרם (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

When reporting areas where the spam filter apparently blocked a valid URL, be sure to provide the block message, otherwise there is no way to investigate the problem. It is possible that a URL you added is blacklisted, or a part of a URL you posted may be blacklisted, or there may be some other issues. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just put this URL on the blacklist, as it's a prohibited tour agency link that has been used to edit war in the Mykonos guide. No-one has attempted to defend listing it under our policies, despite my posts to the talk page of an IP that posted it. The poster seems to have a dynamic IP, so three different IPs starting with 79 have been used so far to post/repost the entry. That's enough. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This repeat touter has also been overwriting other listings in articles about Rajasthan and places in that Indian state. Too bad. If they had been content to list properly, it wouldn't have been necessary to blacklist them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed this from the list; see Talk:Boracay#Boracay_Beach_Live_Cameras. Pashley (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

These yacht charter sites have been repeatedly spammed to the articles for the countries, islands, and cities in their names, by User:Dubravko and now the new users, User:Alen Suskovic‎ and User:Marin Kuljak, all of whom I suspect of either being the same person or working for the same yacht charter company. None of these users has been communicative or paid any attention to either edit summaries or user talk page messages. It may be necessary to delete more such URLs when they post similar URLs to other articles - unless there's an easy way to block ayacht*\.com. Would that work? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This site has repeatedly spammed multiple articles in Jordan. See Special:Contributions/Nathanrobertholderhead, Special:Contributions/188.247.72.237. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Blacklisted for repeated, verbatim touty listing, with touting user having repeatedly disregarded edit summaries and user talk page messages. See Paris/16th arrondisement history, User talk:81.57.0.233. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

trying to edit list to hotel (Holiday Inn now a new franchise in Aachen)) --Traveler100 (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

* {{sleep | name=Leonardo Hotel Aachen | url=http://www.leonardo-hotels.com/germany-hotels/aachen-hotels | email= | address=Krefelder Straße 221 | lat= | long= | directions=North of the centre between the stadium and junction 3 of the A4 | phone=+49 241 18030 | tollfree= | fax= | hours= | price= | checkin= | checkout= | content= }}

What's the issue? Is that link blacklisted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is stated as so when I try and add the link. Take the nowiki tag of the lines above and try and save. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I see that leonardo-hotels dot com is on the blacklist. I'm not sure why. I'll remove it from the blacklist. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Try adding the listing now; it should work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the URL was added due to spamming. Wikivoyage talk:Local spam blacklist/Archive 2009#Leonardo-hotels dot com -- Powers ^(talk) 15:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It was 5 years ago. If the spamming restarts, we can put the URL back in the spam blacklist, but perhaps it's OK to leave it off for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The first is the site of a realtor who sells houses and does not do short-term rentals, ergo not the kind of listing we want on Wikivoyage, and has advertised repeatedly on the Springfield (Ohio)‎ guide. The second is a booking site that has been repeatedly misrepresented as an official site for Les Saintes and otherwise posted in attempted subterfuge. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

This URL has been used to overwrite an apparent competitor three times by a user who's completely ignored their user talk page and edit summaries. This will be noted on their user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The interwiki links added at the end of the page are wrong. Please correct them or delete them. --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Which particular links are wrong? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

All of them. Click on any and see the result ;-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

You mean the left-hand sidebar, and some of the links still work; I'll delete the ones that point to empty pages and such. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

This tour agency URL was repeatedly spammed at Sa Pa and Ha Long Bay. See these article histories. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

URL of serviced apartments, blacklisted because of edit warring by touter with dynamic IP in Coimbatore. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Repeatedly touted in an edit war on Croatia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Any idea why this url is not allowed in listing? h**p://www.deraghotels.de/hotels-bonn/hotel-kanzler-bonn.html DERAG hotels is a common hotel chain, link above is the official hotel webpage.. —The preceding comment was added by Nordostwestwind (talk • contribs)

It would appear a marketeer tried to add lots of Derag hotels to multiple pages back in 2010. Maybe it is time to remove the blacklist from this address? --Traveler100 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why not? That's over 4 years ago. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done --Traveler100 (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Added to the list, due to an extensive touting history. Also see User talk:125.25.33.27. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I cannot add a bestwestern.de link even though not in the spam list? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's being caused by the global blacklist at meta:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, you may wish to ask there? K7L (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't see that term in either blacklist. I did a search for "best" in both places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

True, but if you do attempt to save a clickable link to www.bestwestern.de on meta: it will give the error message "The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site. The following text is what triggered our spam filter: bestwestern.de" so whatever's causing this is global, not local. K7L (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

meta:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is Meta's local blacklist. The global blacklist is at meta:Spam blacklist, and bestwestern.de is on there. In the past, we've had trouble getting sites like that removed from the global blacklist, despite their usefulness to all Wikivoyages; they are likely to suggest whitelisting it on each language version instead. Your choice which way you want to go with it. Powers ^(talk) 13:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

After reviewing past requests, I think this one is a stronger case for removal from the global blacklist, as it's clearly an official site. w:de:Best Western links to it. (On the other hand, it appears to just be the German-language version of the Best Western site; I can't think of any reason a non-German project would need to link to it. Why do you want to link it?) Powers ^(talk) 13:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because cannot work out how to get hotel info page without going into booking process. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Best Western's English site has recently been updated. Have you tried it recently? Powers ^(talk) 18:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Repeatedly spammed Kodaikanal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

See this history. This spammer is so stupid, s/he spammed a talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reverts and a couple of requests to stop re-adding this car rental aggregation site have gone unheeded, so adding to the blacklist. See Special:Contributions/116.58.53.234 and Special:Contributions/110.39.70.62 for a couple of the accounts that have been used to add this site to articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Added for persistent touting and edit warring at Sihanoukville. See history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also added as a keyword. Did I do that the right way? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hi, everyone. Please look at this edit. What did I do wrong? I tested adding that keyword, and it was not blocked by the spam filter. See this history for context. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Per User talk:Wrh2#MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist the blacklist apparently now only works on URLs. If things get particularly problematic then an abuse filter could be set up, which should work on any text. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

That sucks. I'll bet this persistent edit warrior won't give up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

We can create an abuse filter for it. Is there anything more distinctive than 'bamboo bar' to look for? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek, an abuse filter can do everything that the blacklist can (and more, actually: an abuse filter can even be set to autoblock users that trigger it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know that. I don't think there's anything more distinctive than "Bamboo Bar' to look for. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

The North Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce now has an official Travel website. I tried to add the travel website to the North Myrtle Beach wiki data page but was told that because it has "hmyrtlebeach dot com" in the URL it triggered a spam filter. I'm guessing another website that had "hmyrtlebeach" in it was spamming. The Chamber's website URL is: ExploreNorthMyrtleBeach dot com. Can someone help? Thanks! —The preceding comment was added by 24.159.134.226‎ (talk • contribs)

URLs containing myrtlebeach dot com are globally blocked across all Wikimedia projects by the global blacklist: meta:Spam blacklist. We could whitelist the pattern here, but I would be hesitant to do so since spamming usually has to be pretty egregious for a URL to be globally blacklisted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I can't find anything in the global blacklist archives about this specific pattern. (I note, though, that the pattern was constructed to exclude www.myrtlebeach.com -- the domain has to have a word before "myrtle". www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com must be whitelisted because it's linked from w:Myrtle Beach.) I just tried to change the website linked in the lede of Myrtle Beach to the travel site (www.visitmyrtlebeach.com) and got the same blacklist notice as User:24.159.134.226‎ did. Powers ^(talk) 22:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that official websites of the Chamber of Commerce should be blacklisted. Would anyone object to whitelisting ExploreNorthMyrtleBeach dot com locally? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Update: Thank you for looking into this so quickly! I just wanted to check back and follow-up on if it's possible to get the Chamber's travel site whitelisted. —The preceding comment was added by 24.159.134.226 (talk • contribs)

To ensure that my original comments aren't being interpreted as an objection to whitelisting the URL in question, I would not oppose someone adding the URL in question to the whitelist, but I don't feel that this is an obvious enough case that I'm willing to do it myself. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've actually gone ahead and requested removal of the *myrtlebeach.com pattern from the blacklist. Its odd construction, designed to specifically exclude an unofficial commercial site, leads me to be suspicious of the pattern's origins. It's worth a shot, at least. Powers ^(talk) 23:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for not checking back in on this. The Myrtle Beach pattern has been removed from the Meta blacklist. I'll make the updates that User:24.159.134.226 and I wanted to make. Powers ^(talk) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

See history on Lake Toba for May 2016. Tour operator is edit warring despite requests for discussion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Inveterate dynamic-IP edit warring touter. See history of Mount Rinjani article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I'm trying to add the URl mariador-palace dot com to a hotel in Conakry, unfortunately it get's caught in the spam filter as palace dot com seems to be banned. A good deal of hotels use the word palace in their domain names, so it would make sense to remove that word from the spamfilter. --Jonte-- (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's archived discussion about that pattern at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2015-08#palace.com, with the suggestion that the pattern should be removed as it casts far too wide a net, but nothing was ever done. I'll see if I can restart discussion. Powers ^(talk) 15:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Repeated touting in the Mount Rinjani‎‎ article has now expanded to Singapore and Malaysia (see Special:Contributions/114.125.85.55 among other IPs used), so blacklisting. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

An edit of mine (of Kurjenrahka National Park) was caught in the spam filter, this url or something similar: http://karttapalvelu.lounaispaikka.fi/?lang=en&zoomLevel=9&coord=245107.75_6733676.25&mapLayers=327+100+default,226+100+&showMarker=truehttp://bit.ly/1SPPRjU

The host is karttapalvelu.lounaspaikka.fi, but bit.ly, which triggered the filter is included in the url as "truehttp" (and as host in some of the links). Does somebody know how bit.ly works and why it was blocked? Is the background map itself theirs or could they be bypassed? The map service I tried to use is said to be an experiment (in a comment shown while or just after loading), so persuading to not use bit.ly may be possible – but hard for me, who does not know the background.

There is clickable text "Open Streetmap". It is unclear whether OSM can be used as alternative background map. Anyway OSM is useless for parks, as they do not include terrain data (as far as I understand). An understandable decision for a "street map", but including it (available freely in Finland) would make it much more usable in this kinds of applications.

--LPfi (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

bit.ly is a redirect service used to generate tiny URLs that redirect to longer URLs elsewhere, and thus could be used by spammers to add blacklisted sites by hiding the actual URL. If bit.ly is blocked then that is being done by the global Mediawiki blacklist - bit.ly doesn't appear on our local blacklist. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I conclude there is no problem using the service for legitimate purposes (as long as one can avoid the blacklist). I removed the "truehttp://bit…" part and the url still worked. --LPfi (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The text you quoted in your initial comment contains two URLs concatenated. The first URL ends with "showMarker=true"; the second begins with "http://". By removing the "true" you may have changed the functionality of the link. Powers ^(talk) 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes. But formally (in url syntax) everything after "showMarker=" is one argument, and I thought the "true" would perhaps not be parsed and recognized separately. I left "showMarker=" as I though the presence of the parameter, regardless of value, might be recognized. It seems to work (at least for my use). I have not tried other versions. --LPfi (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

This company is one of the many that has been repeatedly been spamming the Mount Rinjani‎‎ article and not responding to talk page messages (see User talk:Lun expeditions for one such message). -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Added for persistent spam-touting by two IPs. See Yazd article's history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The spam filter rejected this website in a recent edit of mine, but to my untrained eyes the website appears to be legitimate and I'm not sure why it's blacklisted. Would it be possible to unblock it, and how would I go about doing that? –StellarD (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

That pattern is on the global blacklist, so I think it would either have to be whitelisted here or else you would have to request removal at meta. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I requested at meta to have the site removed, but the request has been denied and I was told it should be whitelisted here instead. How does one do that? –StellarD (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

See MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist for whitelisting instructions. When explaining why this link should be whitelisted, please be very clear about why this URL needs to be included in a Wikivoyage article since anything that is globally blacklisted across Wikimedia projects isn't something anyone will want in Wikivoyage unless there is a very clear reason why it is needed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's only globally blacklisted because someone spammed it five years ago. It's really frustrating how they refuse to un-blacklist anything over there, even if it's a legitimate site. Powers ^(talk) 02:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Umm, I believe that if you review the archives at meta you will see that domains are removed from the blacklist. I know that I pay particular attention to long term blacklist items, and give consideration to the originating circumstances, though I do expect to hear a reasoned argument for removal requests, as I expect a reasoned argument for addition requests. At meta one will also find the request to request a whitelist at a project as part of the path to a global removal. It allows us to check that the spam doesn't reappear. Billinghurst (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The website appears to have been whitelisted on de.wv. If two separate projects decide independently to whitelist a site, would that not present a good case for removal from the global blacklist? –StellarD (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

So given that some just tried to put an invite link into the article on Prague again can we have some sort of vandalism filter or highlighter for invite links same as we do for the Telstra edit patterns? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Do you want an abuse filter, or an entry in the spam blacklist? It's possible to blacklist "uber/invite" links but permit plain "uber" links with the blacklist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Whatever works. We can block them (but then we'd have to make sure there are no false positives) or we could make the recent changes highlight them similar to edits by the Telstra person. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

See the edit history of the Hoi An article for background - multiply touted, edit warred. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

See this user's edit history for just the latest manifestation of this long-term spam campaign from an IP-hopping anonymous user or users (complete with deceptive edit summaries!). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

A tourist bus rental is an unlikely subject for a legitimate listing, and this has been spammed in irrelevant articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can somebody please check why spam filter doesn't allow visitsubotica.rs links. For instance, when I try to add http://www.visitsubotica .rs/see/art-nouveau-architecture/city-hall link to Subotica article, it complains, "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: visitsubotica.rs". Just to mention, it's the Official Tourism Website of Subotica. Thanks Kiaora (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Was this ever resolved? I don't see that URL on the blacklist. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Website used for spam-touting at least 3 times now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Spam. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Touted by now 3 separate IPs in the Chennai article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I was confused. It's 2 IPs, and this was only the 2nd instance of touting the hotel, so I lifted the blacklisting for now but will reinstate it if it's touted once more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Uses multiple accounts to add this link, and recently even removed another company's listing to add their own. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Inveterate touter, using 3 IPs so far, no heed whatsoever to their user talk pages or edit summaries. See Dehradun history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Touted in the Seminyak article by 5 IPs with 5 reversions. At least 2 of the IPs were warned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Touted a number of times at Munnar. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

A website for selling things is not the kind of site a travel guide would want to list, and anyway, the username and IP trying to list it, initially as a used car selling site, are touters. Of course they were warned before this step was taken. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply