Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2016-08

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

Set of spam IPs


    • Active cross-wiki


all seem related through the Found more through the respective reports, and one IP from that was cross-wiki. Not useful anyway. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Two spambot domains

Spambots (w:Special:Undelete/User:Rudowelph, w:Special:Undelete/User:EvansBertha). MER-C (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Essay mill spam

MER-C (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Spambot.--Syum90 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  Added to Spam blacklist. --Syum90 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Url shortener. Track13 0_o 15:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Track13:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Syum90 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Lanayica/sandbox). MER-C (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. Syum90 (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Abused directory-type listing and url shortener  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  Added  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Bonwasdfita). MER-C (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Syum90 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Lorensimmy). MER-C (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Syum90 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User talk:EmiliaIrwin). MER-C (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

url shorteners from spambots

 — billinghurst sDrewth 08:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 08:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

more url shorteners

via spambots  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

seo-site working method bringing referrals. The site does not contain any useful information, but the risk add spam links. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Максим Підліснюк: Hi, as far I can see it is a single wiki issue, so please request local blacklisting first. Regards.--Syum90 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  Declined best handled via ru:Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Spammed on: many different (also smaller) Wikipedias (maybe also WikiVoyage?)
  • Topic: tourist features in Germany (and especially Hamburg)
  • no user name
  • many different dynamic IP addresses. Examples:

There are more than plenty pictures of those POIs at Wikimedia Commons. We do not need to link extensively to a single website for such common images. -- 21:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

While I understand why this has been brought here, I am loathe to act when the individual wikis have not. The domain is not added to any blacklists, and the linking xwiki is along the lines of 279 records; Top 10 wikis where has been added: w:en (23), w:zh (9), w:sv (8), w:ru (8), w:ja (7), w:pt (6), w:ko (6), w:nl (5), w:no (5), w:tr (5). I would like to see a larger commentary, or clear indication that there is abuse by seeing the wikis removing these links.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:   Declined  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Stumbled accross this in an OTRS complaint (Ticket#2016030310023685) as someone had removed a link to a seemingly valid page. Searching a little to see if the site was legit I found that only some pages at was available, and searching some more I found that some of the pages was the usual "hot pics" and not only "hot vegetables". The hot pics seems to have disapeared since. I removed the link at nowiki, but was reverted at enwiki. I removed one to many links at enwiki, sorry.

Looking at the site I wonder if this is an up and coming linkfarm that has a legit front page and only lets users navigate to other legit pages. It can also be an old domain that is reused for a new site, and that is the reason for the strange hits in search engines. It could be interesting to identify whats really going on with this site, but I don't have the time to further investigation. — Jeblad 14:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jeblad:   Declined as it is not currently being added. I have set it to be monitored  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: No problem if the link spam has disappeared. — Jeblad 22:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Spam. 18:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  Declined at this point it is managed by the community, and it doesn't seem to be clear blacklist material. Please review the xwiki report and identify if you can see something else.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[a-z]{2,5}/translate und

There have been already several discussions on that topic (see Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008-02#WebWarper, Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2013-04#Google_Translate_as_a_universal_URL_redirector), but I think it won't do any harm to discuss again. :-)
As demonstrated at dewiki it is possible to use the google-translator to circumvent the sbl. user:Boshomi stated that in at least 2 cases the google-translator was used with blacklisted urls. Still I'm not sure, whether the use of such translations on talk pages might be bigger than the risk of sbl circumvention. I guess at least in dewiki in main namespace the google translations are unwanted.
Maybe in future there should be developed a mediawiki extension for automatic translations that does not depend on just one (google) translator. -- seth (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: our general rule on url shorteners is to blacklist on sight (even before use occurs). IMHO, there is in mainspace no reason to link ever to these services (you link to the data, and then click 'translate' yourself if that is necessary - I would get a bit cross if I got automatically redirected to an English translation of a document in Dutch, German, Frysian, Italian .... It is not to the editor to decide which translation I should use, and if they used a translation to reference an article then that is a dangerous practice in itself). And actually that is similar outside of mainspace. I think this could be blacklisted similar to the /url? link of google search results pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Lustiger seth:   Added to Spam blacklist as \ -- — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi billinghurst, I'd like to note that this causes a problem with the en:Template:Not English template on the English Wikipedia. When someone uploads a non-English article to the English wiki, it gets tagged with the Not English template and listed at en:WP:PNT. Within that template there is a parameter which allows you to enter the language of the article. If a language is added to the template, it provides a link to the google translation and also a link to that language's wikipedia. This is useful for assessing if the article is a duplicate of an existing English article, or a duplicate of a foreign language article (either would make the new article eligible for speedy deletion). But now that has been blacklisted the language cannot be added to the template. For example, I tried to add Spanish to the template at en:Jean Alain Rodríguez, but could not save the edit because I am adding a blacklisted link (to google translate). Losing the ability to add a language to the template makes things difficult when dealing with these new articles. The reasons for blacklisting described above do not seem to be an urgent or recurring problem. Is there a way around this? Athomeinkobe (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Athomeinkobe, Lustiger seth, and Beetstra: I have reverted the spam blacklist addition. We should see what options exist at enWP to try a different approach. It may be that we write a global abuse filter, though that would have no effect for the large wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you billinghurst. Athomeinkobe (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Athomeinkobe, Lustiger seth, and Billinghurst:. I would strongly suggest to re-revert this, and add this to the blacklist, and whitelist (or as an exclude on the blacklist rule here) a cse-type link to use in the templates. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I wonder whether something like \btranslate\.google(?![\?|\&]u=(^\&)*? would do the trick - disallow all translation except if there is a source (u) from wikipedia itself. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is what COIBot says is the current situation with the two

<COIBot> Sorry, number of records exceeds stats limit (55192 > 5000), loading would stress MySQL too much.
<COIBot> 2073 records; Top 10 wikis where has been added: w:en (333), w:es (67), w:fa (60), w:de (36), w:vi (35), w:sh (32), w:pt (28), w:ar (22), w:fr (20), w:ca (16).

 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Many of those will be due to the abovementioned template(s). If indeed 99% is due to the template I see no reason not to blacklist with exceptions. We have quite some possibilities with regex, and we have whitelists for a reason... I am really tempted to blacklist again, and whitelist the url in this template. I don't see any other use for these links than a couple of translation links needed for maintenance (like this one). I'll see if I can do manual a database-search later (that is going to be heavy on the server). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
One more:, see e.g. en:MBB_Bo_105#cite_note-40. That is exactly the situation I describe above, I want the original; the writer is not to decide whether and which translation to use. I can read German myself, there is no need to link to the translation. And if one uses the google translation to reference the material one can question whether they are capable to check the quality of the translation. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
With respect Beetstra, whether you can read German is irrelevant in this case, because it is the English Wikipedia and so it must be assumed the reader can't. But I 100% agree with everything else you say. I can't fix the German example you've provided, but there are plenty of cases where it has been used to provide links to a translation of Japanese text. I will start fixing those. Athomeinkobe (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra: I have no issues with a blacklisting, it just needs to be more elegant that the basic. If we can code around the required exceptions, that works for me. We should monitor domain, check the the blacklist log at enWP and maybe ping a few admins where it is more widely used so they can monitor their blacklist logs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Athomeinkobe: 'it must be assumed the reader can't' is utterly biased, most of the English speaking population of this planet does not have English as their first language/mother tongue. What I mean is that providing an English machine translation as a source is wrong in itself, since the English text was not the source, it was in the original language. Also, that translation changes as the engine becomes better due to developments. As a 'convenience link' (next to the original source) is biased, as, as I said, a lot of English speaking people do not have English as their mother tongue. Third, using the google translate in the prose would be biased in itself, there are more translating services out there (some of which may even be better), preferring Google is 'spammy' (yes, this also means that other translation services should be discouraged as well, and blacklisted when they can be used as redirects.
@Billinghurst: - the major use should only be templated, translating either the non-translated document on a XX language wikipedia to YY, or to translate from another Wikipedia to YY (use that could be common on any wiki). The source url ('u=') hence should always contain a link from one of the mediawiki-wikis. For specialist other use we can easily add exceptions (if they are 'global'), or they can be whitelisted locally. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Mariawsmith). MER-C (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on one user's edit history, they seem to be specifically interested in reverting removal of a link to their(?) website, even after being warned. This external site sells merchandise related to these wikipedia pages, even referring to the external site as "official". 2601:1C0:4000:AFA2:CDF6:320D:6697:2C07 20:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a local issue, please take this up at w:en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.   Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Obviously spam-only site 19:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  Declined Local problem on en.wikipedia. User has been blocked, no other additions. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Spambot (w:Special:Undelete/User:Hulkmozzk). MER-C (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. Syum90 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

I doesnt know why iam not able to add this domain to the wikipedia references while iam able to add from all other websites. Please remove the block. I request!

Not blacklisted on Meta - it would appear to be a local (en wp) issue. You should request removal there. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  Nothing to do, not globally blacklisted. It is blacklisted at en.wp per this request. As commented by Herby you should request removing there. Syum90 (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The link is the official website of Malaysian Palm Oil Council. Actually the council is under the w:Ministry of Plantation Industries and Commodities (Malaysia). May I know why was blacklisted before? Kindly hope the link is removed from blacklist. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not blacklisted here but on local Wikis (presumably they had reason) so cannot be removed from here. Local Wiki requests would be needed. --Herby talk thyme 14:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  Nothing to do, not globally blacklisted. It is blacklisted at several wikis as you can see here. As commented by Herby you should request removing there. Syum90 (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why this website was blocked, but it is the official website of the Tinapa project and the block prevents me from adding the website as an official website to one of the pages that I'm working on: Tinapa Shopping Complex.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It is blocked as it was being spammed by spambots. If you think that it should be added at English Wikipedia, then please apply for a whitelist, or partial whitelist at w:Mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

We are the owners of which has been globally blacklisted. Please see our Wikipedia page: We would like to request removal from this list as we are a reliable source of language learning. We seem to have been blacklisted because of the site "" who we do not have any current affiliations with.

  Removed from Spam blacklist. 6 years old block; will add to the monitoring list to ensure that abuse is captured.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Most popular English bitcoin forum, appears to have been added to the blacklist due to spam, but it contains much information about bitcoin and altcoin history and I would consider it a good source because it is the main publishing source for many of the official developments of alternate cryptocurrencies, links have been requested for whitelisting multiple times on the English wikipedia (e.g. w:Dogecoin, w:Litecoin).— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liance (talk) 01:19 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason for this website to be blocked. A partial match was also made for Page concerned is History of Bitcoin on, which says it is on the global blacklist.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kernosky (talk) 13:58 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I too was confused by this. Apparently all forum links are blacklisted by default from what I see in previous discussions of bitcointalk(dot)org... I think there was also spam problems from that site. I am trying to get a specific link removed from the blacklist here: Quote by Andreas Antonopoulos on Bitcoin Talk. Will see how that goes. –JonathanCross (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
You might be better to seek whitelisting of individual or component urls. Generally forums are not authoritative, and spammed urls of forums are quite problematic. Whitelists at local IPs are provided for exactly the reason to circumvent blocked domains.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  Declined closing out conversation  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2016-08" page.