Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2019-02

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

RFD: regex for consideration

Regex requested to be blacklisted: outlets\.com?\b

I am proposing the above regex as we are seeing a lot of spambots adding shopping spam ending in and

This is being added here for consultation as it is undetermined how many good urls could be like this. My exploration hasn't found any, though the tools for such explorations are pretty ordinary, and I am no expert on legitimate marketing urls in use at the WPs. Community input is desired prior to proceeding to false positives / negative consequences.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: That is going to be heavy on the db to run such a query. I could envisage good links here, but we'll have to exclude them by design here / whitelisting where needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
We can just continue to blacklist if it is problematic, they usually butt up against filters, though there is a small amount of leakage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  Declined not doing at this time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam campaign. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:   Added to Spam blacklist. definite xwiki abuse; adding now, will have to run COIBot reports later. @Beetstra: pretty widespread and COIBot has not noticed for edits in a /64 in this case they look to be in 2a02:a311:8264:c300:0:0:0:0/64 -- — billinghurst sDrewth 23:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
As a note to anyone who appears from xwiki to comment, it would appear that edits to software version number is correct, it is the linking to their website that is problematic. [All those templates would be so better managed through extracting wikidata.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: those bloody IPv6 IPs .. COIBot (well, LiWa3 actually) does not understand ranges on those. I should see if in some near future I have time for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

simplewiki drug spambots 20190207

previously blacklisted

<- using for primary tracking

More incoming. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Being handled via individual reports by Billinghurst. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Handled for a number identified by Bsadowski. Note from those that I did a quick check, they were hosted on two different IP addresses, the link back function should be used to identify others, and I will be manually pushing further trackers into the last report as a means to assist. The urls had some elements of repetition, which could be investigated for a regex, either through the blacklist or as a spam filter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 21:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thank you. But is duplicated if I saw the diff rightly. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh duplication was resolved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

more 20190208

 — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

more 20190208

 — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Spambot redirect regex

Regex requested to be blacklisted: \.ru/bitrix/redirect\.php We have a redirect url component, many are in the ru TLD, so I am initially going to block there, and will collect data on other uses to see if we should be doing other TLD.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


Regex requested to be blacklisted: \.ru/bitrix/rk\.php\?goto Variation of above.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Another redirect site to, like --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra:   Added to Spam blacklist - only linked twice on en.wikipedia, not on the other big wikis. Blacklisting per decision on (we blacklist and revertlist, no need to run behind the redirects to blacklist those). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

URL shortener found in spamming attempt on Commons. --Achim (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  Added to Spam blacklistDefender (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

url shortener  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

url shortener  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 09:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

another essay writing spam farm  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

url shortener  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to URL shortener (recently spammed on en-Wiki). GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@GermanJoe:   Added to Spam blacklist url shortener -- — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

I wanted to update the Playboy Playmates of the Year page ( and noticed the external link was linking to a site that doesn't exist anymore and is redirecting to the official site which hasn't been updated in a year or so. Same issue for the Playmate Of The Month and the Penthouse Pets. When trying to update to my source to (the only site that is regularly updating its listing it seems), I noticed is on the blacklist. Hoping it can be removed, as it's a reputable source that is not overloaded with annoying ads like many adult sites out there.

  Declined and please refer to the listing request as it was being xwiki spammed. You would be best to enquire at English Wikipedia about them setting up a temporary exclusion for the required edits via w:en:Mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Facu-el Millo (talk)

@Facu-el Millo: Just dropping a line without explanation isn't a suitable request. You need to look at why it is blocked, and explain why it should be unblocked. I will also note that the domain is not blocked, though I note that is blocked.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  Removed Oh, I see that it was caught in an old regex. I have modified that regex so it should not catch this in the more simple form, though will still disallow  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It's an official site of Russian Professional Boxing Ferderation, contains valuable data in profiles of boxers ( .../boksyery/6294/). I think it's wrong to block this site. It now in whitelist in RuWiki. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  Removed @Сидик из ПТУ: it was caught in a regular expression aimed at a proliferation of other "" spam  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place for it, but I'm trying to find out why a particular site is on the blacklist. I'm not comfortable proposing to remove it from the blacklist in case there's a valid reason I'm not aware of why it's there in the first place. I came here after getting some help over on . The site in question is called and so far as I know it's a pretty reputable blog on female 1960s singers. Thanks in advance! Moebeus (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Moebeus: There are a couple of links in our archives (search box above is helpful for finding, as well as utilising {{LinkSummary}} template)
So it is an old block, and we are guided by users on these matters. What we require to consider an unblock is some conversation about the spamminess of additions, and the authority of the site as a reliable source.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

On the Wikidata project chat an editor reported that is actually a good site as of today, and another editor figured out that it was added more than a decade ago. I'm not directly involved and haven't looked at the site, but think that checking very old abuse filters makes sense, if folks don't get why they are blocked. – 14:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment suggest that we look to remove from the blacklist and set domain to be monitored, and re-add if it does have issues. Other opinion sought.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
      Out of curiosity I visited the site, no 3rd party cookies, no Ads blocked, no privacy badger actions. Of course they could still try to spam Wikis again when possible, OTOH after more than a decade let them try it, adding a new block for a known ancient problem is simple. – 23:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Moebeus, Billinghurst,, and   Removed from Spam blacklist. I do not see many attempts in the past to spam this site, and as said: it can always be re-added, once it has been reported it will be noticed if a problem restarts. General notes: a) the content of a site is hardly ever an argument in blacklisting (outside of 'the site is good, we really need it'), it is the ab/misuse of Wikipedia (generally for promotional/SEO, but also other non-wanted mass additions); b) age is also not an argument, I have documented cases of 10 years worth of systematic abuse/attempts/etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Thank you! Moebeus (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Moebeus (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This website seems to have been blacklisted in 2009 and has since become a major VPN provider that was acquired by the cyber-security company Avast in 2016. Currently it is impossible to add the official link to the infobox of w:en:HideMyAss!, while normally comparable articles have such a link, so I would like to request such link to be enabled as it is the norm on Wikipedia.--Concus Cretus (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Concus Cretus:   Declined, next to being a vpn, it is (was) also used as a redirect service (and that was why it was blacklisted). For now, I would suggest to just whitelist a neutral landing page on en.wikipedia.
(note to all): next to being blacklisted here, it is blacklisted also locally on many wikis. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Ok, this is reasonable. Thanks for answer. I was not sure where to request a whitelisting, so if I understand correctly now, it would be w:en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)?--Concus Cretus (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Concus Cretus: That is correct. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I want this site to be removed from the blacklist. I don't really know the reason why it was blocked on the global blacklist. I though it was blocked only on English wikipedia. I tried searching the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log to know who blocked it and the reason but it appears the site is not even in the log yet it reports being blacklisted or blocked from English Wikipedia. I submitted a request on the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log to get it removed but was referred here. Please help.

The info received from the company says that an unknown and inexperienced person started sharing affiliate link with 'referer' parameter all over Wikipedia hoping to get more funds from the company's affiliate programme. He or she hoped to get more traffic from the referred users. This resulted in getting blacklisted. The company has no hands in the spamming process. Uptill now, they don't know exactly who used the site on English Wikipedia. is a specialized online e-currency exchange service that monitors rates for dozens of popular conversion pairs in near real-time and offers one-click access to lists of reliable e-currency exchangers capable of helping users complete their transaction quickly and efficiently.

Please help me check the website and have it removed from the global blacklist. Thanks Belmanga101 (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It was added as it was abused, and as a link doesn't fit the model of w:en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Blacklisting is not a rating of a site as being good, bad or indifferent, it is a mechanism to stop abuse of links that do not fit the character of our sites. That bestchange has an abusable system of referring is a problem that they face with that business model that simply puts it into the territory of begging to be blacklisted. If you think that it is a link that should be able to be used at English Wikipedia and override the global blacklisting, then you can apply for a whitelisting at w:en:mediawiki talk:spam-whitelist. I would think that you will need a better purpose than your one-click reference as the Wikipedias are encyclopaedias, not the place for up-to-the-minute exchange rates.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Further note, if you have any vested interest with the organisation, then please make your declaration of interest at your user page at English Wikipedia.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Belmanga101:   Declined After further investigation at enWP, I would think that local whitelisting for limited use is the better way to progress. I am still seeing evidence of similar attempted abuse in enWP's logs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

sDrewth, Sorry, I'm new here. I have made a COI declaration on my userpage.

Actually we are only worried about what the abusers do with out website URL. What would be enough for us is to change the form of the link at the blacklist so that abusers wouldn’t be able to add their affiliate links into the articles. It would be enough to change the record




Can you help us with this? Is this possible? We'll be glad if this is done as this actions of abusers has caused untold problems to our business. Belmanga101 (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2019-02" page.