Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2016-12

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

URL shortener. MER-C (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. —MarcoAurelio 12:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Typosquatting redirect site. See diff. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


Yet another google service, which can propably be used for block circumvention. (If anyone wonders what google uses it for: Tricking users into staying on google pages only, under the claim of making the AMP-enabled page load faster and getting it a higher page rank (AMP means "Accelerated Mobile Pages")) --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nenntmichruhigip:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 09:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


Spambot. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsure if it is a spambot, need to have a second look later. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 18:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
GUC only shows the two edits at that IP address, and both at enWP and at seven minutes apart. So doesn't particularly look spambot, I think that it can be managed at enWP at this point in time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra:   Declined no further evidence of action. Setting bot to monitor.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)




Collecting data. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

URL shortener. MER-C (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Herby talk thyme 08:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

URL shorteners. MER-C (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C:   Added to Spam blacklist. Thx -- — billinghurst sDrewth 08:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

This common url couldn't be saved suddenly, though not added by me--Oursana (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Oursana: it is the specific path up to tintoret, see Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/ I am minded to remove this (spammed, but small scale, long time ago, widely used), can you elaborate a bit what this site and this path is? (likely it did not want to save since in your edit it changed into a clickable link, it wasn't before). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I gave you the correct difflink for my edit and I changed nothing. It was a clickable link even before. And indeed other wgas workOursana (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Oursana: you have changed the location of the url within the template and presumably that is being seen as a new addition. After nine years, we can remove IMO. 13:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC) — billinghurst sDrewth
@Oursana:   Removed from Spam blacklist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the link to a legally registered newspaper in Germany, the blocking of the link is politically motivated. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:908:180:3300:351C:D609:1255:578D (talk)

It was requested by members of the community for spamming. @Lustiger seth and Codc: Would you please comment to this request for renoval. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The Die Rote Fahne is a historical newspaper and the owner of the domain try since a long time spamming his website crosswiki in all articles about the historical newspaper. The problem is that Die Rote Fahne and hasn't any relationship except the name. In the opinion of the owner of the website is a continiuum of the historical newspaper but there are no evidence for it. So it is linkspam in my eyes to get more visitors and more attention via Wikipedia. The newspaper Rote Fahne was a newspaper founded by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in the year 1918. During the nazi-regime it was illegal but printed. After the end of the 3. Reich it was discontinued. Since about 1968 there are some communistic groups which comes with newspapers called Rote Fahne or similare. Since year 2000 there are a this website under the domain Some information about this case are in the german wikipedia article [1]. I think its a legal website but it is neither a newpaper nor a successor of the historical newspaper and so there are no reason for linking in the articles about Die Rote Fahne. --Codc (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think, I can add something to this. -- seth (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That was also the impression that I had. The existing article (cross-wiki) and the link do not have the relationship that the name implies. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  Declined No clear reason to remove block, and evidence that the link has been abused previously, and no reason to expect that things have changed in that regard.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
These allegations are false and part of the politically motivated disinformation. "Die Rote Fahne", founded in 1918 by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, has been reissued 1992 by the Central Committee of the KPD/Initiative, including its Party Constitutions, DKP, KPD/East, KPF/PDS and USPD, today Spartakus.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a02:908:180:3300:5162:5483:d9f9:8594‎ (talk)
That is an interesting response. It would also seem that you have a vested interest in the site, and that should be declared in this conversation.

I see no allegations made by the respondents, and there is no evidence of political motivation. I know the work of one the contributors who expressed opinion, and I see there opinion as mostly neutral, and generally informative of the approach that Wikimedia volunteers would expect.

I do not see a case to remove the domain from the blacklist at this point of time. As such our response in such cases is please seek whitelisting at individual wikis, and then we can see how that progresses. Alternatively raise this as an issue at the wiki where the community has an opinion, and refer them here to continue the discussion, to which a consensus can be attributed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This site was included into blacklist by mistake in 2009 and was there since. Now I remembered this fact, so I'm asking to remove it from the blacklist. Here is the story origins Someone (user with IP ) on March 1, 2009 spammed trough multilanguage Wiki pages with the links to the websites of NHL teams in .ru zone. For Tampa Bay Lightning it had a domain All these sites were working on the same engine, where registered at the same day, had the same owner in Whois etc. But was also included into blacklist, but it was created 8 yeras before this, was working (and working untill now), had other engine, other owner etc. Link to this website was already on Russian Tampa Bay Lightning Wiki page on the day, when link to was added (this can be checked by comparing versions; link to was added in 2007). I tried to prove that it was a mistake back than in 2009 but the request was declined, because no one never really checked my arguments about different Whois data, the fact that al that links were added in 2009, while - in 2007, when all these sites never existed, etc. I had to forgot about it. But today I've remembered and here's my new request to exclude from the blacklist with additional argument (to all these I gave in 2009) - as of now, none of these websites, that was included into blacklist in this case doesn't exist anymore, except of, that never stopped it work since creation in 2002. I insist that it was included into blacklist by mistake and ask you to remove it. --Chelya (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC) PS. Here is the original discussion with my arguments that the site was included into blacklist by mistake

@Chelya:   Removed from Spam blacklist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


on Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/, this site has been spamblacklisted because "This commercial chemical search site seems to be spammed quite a lot across projects" without example or ref in 2010! now is 2016 and the "seems to be" seems to me a little light to block the site, which is very useful for find CAS numbers or build isomers'pages and I never found spamming on those pages. So I urge to get out this site to spam blacklisted website. Regards --Titou (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Titou: Miaoxiao258, a globally locked account who was spamming this (and there are more accounts and IPs). It is a bit linkfarming, we have many authoritative sites (dozens) for chemicals, we do not need inadvertent additions of purely commercial sites on top of those which are often already in the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra:: We take about something which appends in 2010 and Miaoxiao258 is blocked - I think six years are enought for forget this historical spamming and now out spam blacklisted this website without tell it overall. I must say this site is useful, it gives with a chemical formula, a long list of isomers of this formula, with name, CAS number and picture. Before I used the more useful and academic but it appears it is now offline (?) ... --Titou (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@The Titou: Special:Search with C12H22O11. 6 Years is nothing, and there are many alternatives (as e.g. our internal search). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra:are you joking? wp internal research only give little result and only created articles. See for exemple fr:C6H12Cl2 and try to reproduce this list with internal search! see too the result on still more complet. Obviously, we're not talking about the same thing (we aren't on the same wavelength) ^^. If you don't want to finish the blocking of this site, it's really a shame - But anyway, I'll continu to use it - bye --Titou (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@The Titou: No, I am not joking - if you want results on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia search is where you want to be, if you want more results on other sites, you go to the other sites - even Google will give you more results than Wikipedia. But we are not linking to this site for the molecular formula search (we should not link to search aggregates whichare never the same), we would in mainspace only link to it for linking to specific CAS numbers. For that there are better results. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
And note that I did not decline it yet, I am only (still) not convinced that Wikipedia should link to this. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see encyclopaedic value in linking to a search result, and I believe that such a link will fail the guidance on both external links and citing sources. If we can demonstrate that there is worthwhile citable information then we could look at that, though I would think that we would initially look to have a language WP whitelist the domain name and see how that progresses. FWIW I am always willing to give a domain name another chance, though time alone on our blacklist is not a factor nor an indicator of current good or changed behaviour.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@The Titou:   Declined stale request  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why the official website of en:China Securities Journal (source: Entry in related links in Shanghai Stock Exchange (in Chinese)) was in the blacklist, is that due to was banned? The alternative url seem point to the same web interestingly not banned. I know the website had set up the https very badly, but i have no idea why it was banned. Matthew hk (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ping point and to the same ip. Matthew hk (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Matthew hk:   Removed caught by a block on shorturl  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The domain was included in blacklist in 2009 just because of adding six links in thematic articles without a Wikipedia account, probably by mistake or because of not good enough quality of content of the page (but it was not a spam - see how the linked page looked liked in that time - ).

There are many admin replies here with the questions about how the domain's unblocking would be helpful for Wikipedia, so here are my answers.

The first reason - ShrinkTheWeb is the service provider for a MediaWiki extension - (and these services are absolutely free for most of the users - till 5000 screenshot captures per month). So, it is not normal when service provider domain for such an extension is blacklisted just because of several links posted 8 years ago.

The second reason - ShrinkTheWeb has now very strong positions in API website screenshot providers niche. There are now lots independent links about the company. I prepared the article draft cause some similar companies already have such articles (see the examples in my profile ).

So, please, remove the domain from the blacklist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2016

@Oleg Sergeykin: I see that you declare a conflict of interest with ShrinkTheWeb on your en userpage. Albeit that it is used in an extension, that does not necessarily mean that that extension is going to be used on these wikis (en.wikipedia may not install it, e.g.); question: if this is going to be enabled, will it then link to the screenshot? Secondly, there is not yet an article on this subject in Wikipedia (it is in draft stage), and for this specific article the whitelisting of one page would be enough. Thirdly, I don't think that this is going to be widely used on Wikipedia.
Linking to screenshots is a bit tricky - one could link to material that should not be linked to, or link to (a copy of) material that is blacklisted, in violation of the copyright of the original, etc. etc.
I'd like to hear more thoughts on this. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Yes, I have declared COI in my profile. I am responsible for some web content for the company (other two sites of company are and ).
Please do also consider that there was really no reason to add the domain to the blacklist. It was probably blocked just by mistake, not because of some precautions about screenshots misusage.
Regarding your notes about screenshot misusage: not contains limitation for such screenshot usage.
STW uses the separate domain to upload autogenerated screenshots -, so you do not need to block entire second-level domain if you just want to block your users from screenshot usage in future (if you will use more restrictive policy regarding screenshots). And it is really hard to abuse the service by the way you described, cause free accounts could produce screenshot only up to 320x240px size and only for front pages of web sites. Full-size API screenshots and screenshots of inside pages are available only for paid accounts.
I guess, screenshot usage really not covered enough in Wikipedia policies. Here is our short article about screenshot copyright issue, with references to legal cases regarding the issue. Technically, STW prevents these problems by forbidding POST variables in API requests:
And, really, I can not submit the article, because I can not put a link to blacklisted domain in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oleg Sergeykin (talk)
What I am mainly worried about, is whether people would screen-capture a website that is blacklisted on Wikipedia, or which is a copyvio in itself or a copyvio by making a screen-capture, and then use that image. And whether we need links to this site in the first place.
The links were blacklisted because IPs were (repeatedly) adding these links in places where they should not be - on en.wikipedia they violate the inclusion standard, there is no reason to link to a screen-capture website on a page that explains what a screenshot is. And that was done cross-wiki. This had nothing to do with what was actually linked to, whether that was spam or not, it had to do with that editors were inadvertently adding links to places where they were not of use.
You don't need to link to the website to submit a draft, it can be added later when the draft is accepted (even if that needs to wait for whitelisting, which, in case it is one link for one page, is preferred over delisting). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that whitelisting the main domain of the site is reasonable, because it can be used by Oleg to prepare his draft, and maybe by other editors to link to the service in present and future relevant articles. But all subdomains should remain blocked, as I can think of no legitimate use for them at Wikipedia. --Felipe (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dirk @Beetstra:! It has already been a month since our discussion, but the decision on this has not been given yet, so I decided to inquire about it again.

It does not seem quite logical to me to completely block a normal website just because of a few such links from over 7 years ago - because any useful website could be blocked in Wiki on the basis of this approach simply by posting several not quite relevant links, so this approach is not quite correct. And the relevance is difficult to estimate in the case of screenshots, at least because Wiki policies regarding screenshots are quite vague, as I pointed out earlier.

I also want to draw your attention that the linkwatcher, in this case, indicated only the third-level domain (, and not the second-level domain. Second-level domain (instead of was included in the blacklist just because of administrator's opinion, not because of linkwatcher.

Regarding your concerns about the incorrect usage of screen captures on Wiki - all these captures are stored on, so there is no need to add the entire second-level domain to prevent their use. But even this will only prevent auto-generation and auto-refreshing these screenshots via STW API. Even when the entire domain is blocked on Wiki - the users still have the opportunity to use screenshots generated - by posting a captured image manually on any image hosting.

Considering all aforesaid, I beg you to unblock domain (or at least just the second-level domain, without its subdomains - as Felipe wrote) in the global blacklist. Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Oleg Sergeykin: - to submit a draft, you don't need a working link to be in the article. And as that draft stands now, I do not see any really independent references, so a question would be notability. Please submit the draft, and see whether it sticks to become an article. Then I would likely consider whitelisting, or adaptation of the domain here (however, that the article is on one wiki while linkable on the other 700+ MediaWiki wikis and many outside .. weak argument for global delisting). @Felipe: as I said, for submitting a draft, the link is not necessary, and if other articles need to link to the article they should use the Wiki-link, not link out.
We are aware of Joe jobbing and time-arguments. I am generally not impressed by time-based arguments.
Regarding the re-posting of images, that is indeed a problem - and editors that insist, will indeed do that. It is however not really an argument to then open the door completely. This is akin leaving the front door of your house open vs. having a bad lock .. both don't stop a thief, but while the former is wide open for burglary, the second still needs someone to realize that the door is having a bad lock.
So, mainly, I would like to see whether the article sticks, evaluation of the draft is based on content, whether the external links are there is a minor part of that. I still have concerns regarding linking to content that evades blacklisting, something that happens with all sites and that is a continuous problem. I don't really see why we should open more doors (though I agree, we could block-off only the subdomains, which I think is the best solution if can be shown that the article sticks). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
reping, I made a typo: @Oleg Sergeykin:. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
> to submit a draft, you don't need a working link to be in the article.
I avoided submitting such an article draft without the link because it would definitely cause a biased attitude regarding the article draft. People will think primarily not about the article's quality and notability, but about the fact that there were some actual reasons to include the entire domain into the global blacklist. Just waited for that "more thoughts" from administrators which you asked for in your 06:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC) message. I thought then, will really provide some thoughts about this and will not ignore this discussion.
> I do not see any really independent references, so a question would be notability.
Well, there is a dozen of links from independent authority sites in the 'Reference' section of the draft.
> Please submit the draft, and see whether it sticks to become an article.
Previously, I had no such direct guidance about choosing exactly this algorithm (without the link). But after these your remarks, I have no choice - just to submit the article draft without the link. I guess, I also need to put a link to our discussion about the blacklisting in the discussion about the article, so the assessors could evaluate not only the article (notability etc) but also the adequacy of reasons for blacklisting it and provide that "more thoughts". Otherwise, the assessors would probably build some unrealistic assumptions about these reasons for blacklisting. Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Drafts are regularly submitted without the external links - it will give some extra scrutiny, but editors there do understand that it is about the content in the first place.
  • There are not many references who write about the subject, one is a comparison of 11 different similar services, that is not specifically about - they likely took just 11 services that appear high in search results, several (most) others are site-stats (not things written about' the subject), or short posts (makeuseof). No reviews by reputable websites.
  • I don't think that reviewers will have unrealistic assumptions - I think they see the same as what I see. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Oleg Sergeykin:   Declined due to its potential for abuse. As noted by another contributor, you should seek whitelisting at the requisite wikis to enable your linking to the base domain (which we cannot do globally).  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, well I do not agree with you regarding the actual reasons. For example, is not in your blacklist and no one uses it this way you and @Beetstra: talking about. The whitelisting evidently was declined now just because you guys decided to clean up all old discussion from this list, you just make several declinings/removals in a row. Please do not delete this discussion, the subject of the article draft was really accepted when I submitted it the first time, the draft was not marked as not-notable. The assessor just asked to do the article more neutral and more encyclopedical. I am now making significant changes in the draft, added several very respectable references, and will submit it again next week. I plan to add even more respectable references in the draft before submitting. I can not finish all the stuff right now cause it is a weekend and tomorrow is my birthday. Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Oleg Sergeykin:
  1. I made several decisions, some removed urls, some declined, on a process called review. That is the scope of the role for this page. I also separately added urls, so I am not sure of your point otherwise. It was declined at a point in time at the seeming closure of the discussion.
  2. Discussions on this page will be archived to subpages by the archiving bot. So whenever it does it, you will always find your all our discussions there. We rarely manually archive, and only when the bot cannot work it out. Nothing has been done to promote or demote the significance of any conversation.
  3. People have commented that the site has capacity for abuse, and we regularly do see many weird and wonderful, and sometimes successful means to have redirect/indirect spam. You can point to as one successful example where it hasn't, and that itself went through a discussion to be blacklisted, however, it survived for different reasons. (please see archive)
  4. It has been the practice of this forum to recommend to users that they progress through seeking consensus here to remove, or seeking whitelisting in full or in part at local wikis, either as a complete solution, or as a means to prove that a url is not being abused, and as a step process for removal from the blacklist. If you cannot successfully argue at wikis for an addition to a whitelist, that would seemingly strengthen the case to retain the domain on the blacklist.
 — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, I think the important point that seems to have been repeatedly ignored is that the top level domain does not, and will never, provide web page screenshots. So there is ZERO potential for abuse by allowing that domain. All service API endpoints will always be on sub-domains (currently and soon also We will NEVER provide an API endpoint (i.e. supply screenshots) via the primary domain. I find it very distateful that my service, the authority in this niche, is blacklisted due to the potential malicious or spammy uses by a minority of Wiki users and/or because of some links posted over 7 years ago. I think that Oleg has done a fantastic job describing the problem with this blacklisting, but I have not yet seen any notable argument against removal (since he already pointed out what I just confirmed). As the proprietor of the ShrinkTheWeb service, I have final authority over all matters and can attest that the top-level domain will not pose any threat to the Wikis. Please reconsider your decision, based on this very valid reason.

This site is apparently blacklisted, but it is the official website for a legitimate tourist attraction. It was added to the list in January 2011. –StellarD (talk)

Added due to Special:Permalink/ —MarcoAurelio 12:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@StellarD: What would be a typical page where this would be appropriate? It was not on the pages where it was spammed to. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra: I initially tried to add a link to the website on a sister project, and discovered that it was blocked. I was advised to come here to request it be removed. –StellarD (talk)
@StellarD: That is indeed the subject of the page. I guess in this case you'd be better off asking for local whitelisting. It was on other sister (different language wikipedias) projects spammed to inappropriate places. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Seems like 5-year-old spam attempts should hold less weight than the fact that the link is a valid, legitimate one that has use in our projects. LtPowers (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@LtPowers: Both have weight, and there is the need to maintain balance, especially with the occasional conundrum of use at Wikivoyages, versus abuse elsewhere.

The quickest solution is for the link addition to whitelist at the site of interest, and one would think that could have happened in the course of a day or two, and then come back to the full discussion. The local whitelists are designed to allow linking around the global blacklist, so wikis should not be reticent to use that process. An argument for removal from the blacklist is open to all wikimedians, and we regularly encourage such discussions; though one would hope that a reasonable level of reasoned discussion could be mounted.

Long term it would seem beneficial to maintain whitelists based on sister projects, so we can whitelist a domain for use at all the languages of a sister project. That would need a phabricator ticket.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, billinghurst. I'm just questioning the need for indefinite blacklisting for any site that's used even once as a cross-wiki spam link. That makes sense for obvious spam to URLs that have little conceivable educational usage, but this isn't even spam; it's just a new contributor adding a link for this one particular lava tube to an existing list of lava tubes. After being reverted, the user correctly changed it to an internal link, which remains today. It's very common for new users to add external links where internal ones would be more appropriate. That calls for education, not blacklisting. LtPowers (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@LtPowers: 5 years is hardly a long time for spamming (I am running regularly into cases which are here for that long, or longer). Once sites make it to a blacklist, that often makes us weary to remove, especially if there is very limited use for a site. In this case, having it whitelisted on a few Wikivoyages seems more appropriate than that we de-list it (so it can be linked across the 700+ MediaWiki wikis - which means a lot of work to clean up and also again removal from all wikivoyages as the site would then be re-blacklisted). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
But in a case like this, Beetstra, where the link is an official link for an location of educational interest, it seems odd to blacklist the site when it's the spammer that's the problem, not the site itself. I mean, English Wikipedia links to the site. It's not like this is a link useful only on Wikivoyages. LtPowers (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
LtPowers, I do not think that you are having any disagreement with us about the legitimacy of one link on one page, the concern is about the repetition of the spamming and the impact of it. Where a domain may only have one "official" use at a wiki, and it is spammed elsewhere at the wiki, it has been the practice to utilise whitelist, even as a temporary measure to get a link introduced to the page. If there is a broader legitimate use across the wiki then a blacklisting is problematic.

As a general practice I still believe that having it whitelisted at a wiki and watching for say six months without spamming as a good methodology to test whether the link should be removed completely.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I have had an opportunity to review this case, and, in this situation, I do not see the need to continue to blacklist this domain. It seems more like exuberance than attempt to abuse the system.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
So, do you think it would be better practice to whitelist on a single wiki before coming here to propose removing the blacklisting? And would that better practice apply regardless of the nature of the link in question? LtPowers (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@LtPowers: Regarding 'need for indefinite blacklisting for any site' - spammers tend to be resilient, it makes them money. There are several cases (which I start to document) where large companies and single users stay here for years in a row trying to get their links in. Time is seldomly a good factor to consider when delisting. We are talking in some cases about more than 10 years. You are right, the editor needs to be educated, but spammers are notoriously difficult to educate.

We generally prefer to see some local whitelistings that did not generate problems. That shows a) that there is a need in several places for a link, and b) shows that no new problems occur with the link. On meta, we only have one or two local wikis that we tend to attend, and it is sometimes difficult to see the cross-wiki use for a link. This type of links have only one legitimate use (and it was in the past already shown that it has a lot of illegitimate use ..), delisting here does not only mean one page on one wiki where it can be added, it can then be added to millions of pages on hundreds of wikis ... and if new inappropriate additions then do occur, volunteers (and that are always the usual suspects that commonly edit this page) have to do a lot of work cleaning up those edits.

You have now convinced me, that this is of wide-scale use, this is not only a page that is used on wikivoyage, but also on (already) 5 wikipedias (the bigger wikis). You also suggest that the original spammer since used wikilinks to link to the correct place. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@StellarD:   Removed from Spam blacklist. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to request removal from global spam blacklist. I don't think there is any reason for blacklisting this. CCing User:Trasprd as user who tried to use this page in his article. The domain was whitelisted at cswiki. From my POV this page seems to be a city-page and I can't find out any reason why it should be blacklisted globally. Please remove it. Thanks in advance, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Trasprd:   Removed from Spam blacklist. The XWiki link above says spammed, and it may have been at the time, and the history there may be of interest to you. I will remove it and set it to be monitored  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the official website of a widely popular company IQ Option that is regulated by CySEC and registered by a number of reputable regulatory bodies. I searched for its domain in the blacklists and managed to find a similar domain ( here: This domain is 100% not related to IQ Option (and I wonder if it actually exists). Could you please make necessary amendments so that I can use the official website for the article on IQ Option?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rrusl u (talk)

@Rrusl u: what you are referring to on the blacklist is indeed the rule that is blacklisting this site, and intended for It was blacklisted by User:Vituzzu, as logged here. I'll leave it to him to explain. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Thank you! I'd like to know how could we fix it as soon as possible, otherwise I can't make this article better and protect it from being deleted (links to official website are somehow essential).
@Beetstra: Hello, Beetstra! I'm wondering if it is necessary to wait for Vituzzu's reasoning? Can we make this domain unlisted a little bit sooner and how?
@Rrusl u: A page will not get deleted just because there is a blacklisted link on it. yes, I prefer to wait for User:Vituzzu on this one, I have the feeling there was referral spam involved here. If that is the case, local whitelisting may be the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  Declined still a spam target, if it is required it will have to be by use of whitelist (temporary or permanent) at the wiki of interest.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This website is a main source on Nita Rossi. I don't experience any spam whatsoever. I'm puzzled about the block of this excellent website. 22:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We will need to get a summary of the edits made. It was blocked back in 2008 due to a person's contribution, are you related to the account "Grahamwelch"? I am not aware of the site, would it be considered to be a WP:reliable source as per the WP definition?  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  Declined stale request, when questions are able to be addressed then it can be reopened.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.

This is a clear wikipedia mirror, but also used as citation in wikipedia, e.g. [2] and frwiki and eswiki. enwiki seems to be clean. should the domain be blacklisted globally or locally only? -- seth (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: Hmm .. this certainly should not be used as a reference, but this site does have it's own article on many Wikis (w:en:Wikiwand and interwikis). I don't think this warrants blacklisting more than (which should also not be used as a reference; en.wikipedia would not blacklist based on being unreliable alone, abuse is needed as excuse for blacklisting). Is the situation 'bad' (I don't see reference-use on enwiki). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess at enwiki somebody cleaned up already (that's what I meant with "enwiki seems to be clean"). (Maybe there's an edit filter or a bot coping with the links in main namespace?) But in other wikis there are still some links left.
I agree in that point that I don't see intended abuse. However, I see violation of our rules and want to stop that. Possibillities I see are: SBL, edit filter, a cleanung up and kindly inform bot. The SBL would be an easy and fast option. The most comfortable solution is the bot I guess.
I guess, I start with an SBL entry at dewiki. An in a few hundred yea^W^W^W^Wsome point in the future I'll implement a more intelligent solution ... -- seth (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Lustiger seth: this again seems to boil down to a proper rewrite of the spam blacklist extension - to be more edit-filter like. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed this conversation. I've removed quite a few links to this site on enwiki and do weekly sweeps of the http and https links. I hate to call it "abuse" as I'm almost sure 100% of the links were added by mistake rather than through deliberate spamming. They do clearly identify as a mirror; I'm far more concerned with the handful of mirrors that go out of their way to obfuscate the origins of their content. Kuru talk 22:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Kuru: those might qualify for blacklisting as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment COIBot as of today says: COIBot> 1755 records; Top 10 wikis where has been added: w:en (603), w:de (86), w:fr (82), w:pt (76), w:es (73), w:hi (73), w:it (34), w:ru (31), commons (28), w:hy (20). I have set the domain to monitor, and recast for a link check. It is blacklisted at deWP and zhWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 1873 records; Top 10 wikis where has been added: w:en (639), w:pt (89), w:fr (88), w:de (86), w:es (79), w:hi (79), w:it (38), w:ru (32), commons (30), w:kn (28).  — billinghurst sDrewth
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2016-12" page.