Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2016-05

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

URL Shortener. — regards, Revi 04:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added — regards, Revi 04:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Irenalie). MER-C (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Syum90 (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot.--Syum90 (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Syum90 (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot.--Syum90 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Syum90 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot.--Syum90 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Syum90 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Aidafain). MER-C (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Syum90 (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Kyledupre). MER-C (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Elenlewis). MER-C (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Charwaugh). MER-C (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Syum90 (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:DeletedContributions/Larryxtler). MER-C (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Cynhiaro/sandbox). MER-C (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Syum90 (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

URL shortener. MER-C (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Syum90 (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot.--Syum90 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Syum90 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Nichosant). MER-C (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Marcpark46). MER-C (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Virgrez). MER-C (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  Added --Syum90 (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

Myrtle Beach web sites

The above listed sites, all official sites of either tourism agencies or city government, are blacklisted due to the pattern "[a-z]\b", which is curiously constructed specifically to exclude a site such as, an unofficial commercial site. Wikipedias and Wikivoyages are likely to want to link to those sites. We could whitelist, but the odd exclusion of and the lack of any discussion in the archives leads me to be suspicious of the reasons why this pattern was added. Is there a good reason to keep the pattern in place? LtPowers (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, at English Wikivoyage we've had a specific request for voy:North Myrtle Beach, and I'd also like to use the URL on voy:Myrtle Beach. LtPowers (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I feel uncomfortable removing this, or making holes in the net without understanding why this net was cast so wide. The blacklisting was deliberately much wider than what the report it is based on (one domain). Billinghurst, why is the net so wide? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  Removed Exact recall isn't there, it was ages ago. There were multiple variations of the theme of the spam.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC) is an excellent archive site that does not suffer the same problem as, a website cannot ask for blanket removal of content from the archive. At, a website may request at some later date that remove all content under the website domain name. This means archiveurl parameters in cite can suffer from link rot. Whereas does not have this policy.
To say more bluntly, not all web pages can be archived at whereas all web pages can be archived at!
There is some discussion (which I cannot find right now) about concerns about potential advertising on The argument is that since does not have a declared mission statement or clearly declared funding source (privately funded by the founder) then "someday it might rely on advertising for revenue". This argument makes no sense all news sites that are cited rely on advertising!!!
Wiki administrators, please allow as a archiveurl source! It's been operating same way since 2012 and is a valueable complementary service to
--Jtmoon (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jtmoon: It is not here, but only on some local blacklists.   Not done, nothing to do here. Note that if you are coming from en.wikipedia, that it is there blacklisted due to a community decision, and hence removal would need a discussion resulting in a community consensus to remove. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra: ty! --Jtmoon (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC), and

Why those certain websites are being blacklisted? There is nothing offensive and controversial whatsoever. Can you unblock those websites. thank you-- 06:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If possible, than please unblock the PornHub Blogs, especially, they are usefull sources.--JTCEPB (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is not the spam itself, it is the outside-of-scope-abuse (vandals adding these links to replace their high school website, e.g.). This will have to go through local whitelist requests for specific links/parts of the sites. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  Declined these site links have been abused previously, and there is no ready requirement for access to whole site. Whitelist requests at individual wikis should be utilised for useful urls within sites.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(the second link was the original link in the tracking)

I was editing an article on w:Brotli, however I can not post a link as a reference, because seems to be blacklisted. Any idea why?

Why does this section have a different request than what is in the linksummary? Copy-paste error? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ye, I think so. I see however, that it still has not been resolved.. --(en: U, T) 09:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dunodos: There was no reply since we were not sure what you were requesting. It is the top domain that is blacklisted, '', which was persistently spammed cross-wiki. As you're now asking for the blog-subdomain, I think it is best that that goes through a whitelisting request on en.wikipedia for the specific link you need. Do note, that blogs are there generally deemed unsuitable both as a reference as well as an external link. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  Declined spamming domain; noting that the subdomain can be whitelisted by interested wikis  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This domain was added to the global spamlist by Beetstra based on nothing besides the allegation that the website is being consistently added to all language versions of Die Rote Fahne. Well, as the official website, it obviously belongs there. Even if it was added as a source on other articles – it is a controversial, opinionated left-wing source, so may usually not qualify as a w:WP:RS, but still there's clearly no reason at all to blacklist it globally. PanchoS (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As you can see on the original request for blacklisting, Codc said that "the concerned website try to imitate the historical newsletter but it has no relation except the namen to this old newsletter".--Syum90 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  Declined no further response. closing inactive  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It is quite difficult to find published content on modern technology as news and discussion mostly happens on personal tech blogs. Wanted to add in the single-page application Wikipedia page. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Billinghurst (talk · contribs), Beetstra (talk · contribs), I guess this particular duty is quite short-staffed? Is there a best way to prompt a review? ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  Removed 2010 entry, so it has some age, little in the way of notes for the addition, we can try removal and see how that works  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


At Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/, there's some discussion about what to do with the "\bpalace\.com\b" pattern, which is catching a lot of unrelated URLs, but nothing was done despite a suggestion that the pattern could just be removed. I would like to re-suggest we do so, or at least refine the pattern to target only and its subdomains. LtPowers (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I am going to remove this - we'll monitor and if the original spam returns we'll have to work specifically, this is just too likely to have collateral damage.   Removed Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2016-05" page.