Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2020-03

Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

handbag spam

guessing that there will be more.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 20:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Noting that the domains seem to be on dispersed IP addresses too. :-(  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

First reported to en.wikipedia, but this is everywhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


Quoting user:Dennis Brown: "en:Batman Arena is the article I found this in. It open under a tab, you have to enter the address in a clean window. Messed up stuff. They force you to go to Google Play and install an app, or to change your search engine. This is a dangerous way to do business and has no place as a "reliable source", or any place in the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 20:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)"

This is all around, would like to see a good review whether this is cross-wiki unwanted/wanted. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:   Added to Spam blacklist. Killing it, full of redirects and unreasonable behaviour for references. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
They would seem to need to be treated as dead links.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Spammed on English, Simple, and Telugu Wikipedias by users who are now blocked on the English Wikipedia for advertising and/or sockpuppetry. The domain is a self-published blog operated by an editor (Soumyadipta.banerjee) who self-admitted to engaging in undisclosed paid editing; the editor is currently blocked for off-wiki harassment. See en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ for details. — Newslinger talk 02:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

<COIBot> 41 records; Wikis where has been added: w:en (30), w:ru (2), w:simple (2), w:te (2), w:pa (1), w:fr (1), w:tr (1).
41 records; Top 10 editors who have added Nenulanga (4), Chandan Manna (3), Iamola123 (2), Sharmausa (2), Chantal876 (2), (2), Bittu me (2), Farah.moonfairy (2), Malwainoz (2), Lingalanga (2).
@Newslinger: has the user being using sockpuppets? Or are we seeing a string of people simply using it as it assists them to put something into an article.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: The user has admitted to hiring a paid editing agency, and the user operates the domain. I can't conclude for certain that the user instructed the paid editors to insert the domain into articles, but I think this is very likely for some of the listed articles on the English Wikipedia. Without access to the deleted pages, I'm not sure if the addition of the domain into the Simple English Wikipedia (w:simple:Reshma(mallu actress)) and Telugu Wikipedia (w:te:రేష్మా (నటి)) was intentional or coincidental, but the users that made those additions (w:simple:User:Nenulanga and w:te:User:Lingalanga) are both globally locked after being blocked on the English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry (see Special:CentralAuth/Nenulanga and Special:CentralAuth/Lingalanga). — Newslinger talk 08:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Newslinger:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 09:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Extensive cross-wiki spam, sme as above. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

See the COIBot report - extensive cross-wiki spam (I count at least five languages) from both IPs and single-purpose users. As best I can tell from Google Translate, it's a blog named "Vietnam Forestry" with a bunch of "natural health" sorts of articles. No encyclopedic value. Creffett (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Spammed (usually by adding it as a "reference" or replacing existing references) on multiple wikis, see existing COIBot report. No encyclopedic value; from a quick skim it's either a blog or advertising masked as a "comparison" site. Creffett (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Crosswiki spam. This attack was not registered on User:COIBot/XWiki/, it's because talk pages were spammed I suppose. Track13 0_o 17:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Track13:   Added to Spam blacklist. and confirming that it is done xwiki to user talk pages. Global Search is useful to find instances.-- — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Store/blog site being extensively spammed on multiple projects. Regards -- XXBlackburnXx (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  Added I've added it to the blacklist, and am currently going through removing it on the various pages where links to the website remain. I'm surprised how long it lasted, considering it's already on the blacklist at my home wiki (simplewiki) and has been spammed in many other places. Thanks for reporting, Vermont (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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

WMF Medium post

Please whitelist:


--Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:   not possible there is no function to globally whitelist; apart from that the only place that it would be blocked is English Wikisource, if that is where you are trying to add it, then please seek local whitelist there.

wherelisted https://
https:// is caught by blacklists: [s:en] \bmedium\.com\b

 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


The temporary solution proposed in the discussion Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2020-01#WD and blacklisted links got unanimous support. So in accordance with that solution I once again propose to whitelist https?:\/\/sci-hub\.[a-z]+\/#. Note the "#": it prevents possible abusing of this whitelisting through "template magic". --colt_browning (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

We would need to exclude sci-hub.$$/#about, which means
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: \bsci-hub\.[a-z]+(?!\/#about)
(and removal of the old rule). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Colt browning:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but why did you exclude /#about, not simply /#? The top screen of the main page of Sci-Hub is the neutral landing page. (Yeah, it was discussed before, but there was no clear answer.) --colt_browning (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Colt browning: it is inexact, generic. I think it is better to be precise. Also for the people who come later, there is a chance that editors come and think 'why /#?', lets get rid of that. With a /#about it is more clear that that was intentional. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I could argue with that, but the problems with '#' make it pointless. --colt_browning (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Colt browning: I had to change it further, the spam blacklist does not understand '#'. It is now \bsci-hub\.[a-z]+(?!\babout\b). Another shortcoming of the spam blacklist, we cannot whitelist something based on #. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh. The new regex does not work either. It still blocks both and Perhaps \bsci-hub\.[a-z]+\/(?!\babout\b) would work. --colt_browning (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Comment @Beetstra: too late for me to try and problem solve well.

<sDrewth> findrules sci-hub
<COIBot> 1: [global] \bsci-hub\.[a-z]+(?!\/ (sci-hub.[a-z]+(?!/ )
<COIBot> 2: [w:en (wl)] \bsci-hub\.bz$ ($ )
<COIBot> 3: [w:en (wl)] \bsci-hub\.cc$ ($ )
<COIBot> 4: [w:en (wl)] \bsci-hub\.ac$ ($ )
<COIBot> 5: [w:en (wl)] \bsci-hub\.\w+\/about\b (sci-hub.\w+/about )

Have you tried a "wherelisted"? I cannot see a url hit at enWP, where are we testing? Noting also that you don't need to escape forward slashes in blacklists, that is automatic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Comment @Beetstra and Colt browning: It doesn't work as a crosshatch # in such pages is used to identify a comment, so I have rem'd the line (ironically with a crosshatch. Not in my current knowledge base on whether we can somehow escape the character or use an alternative representation which I am currently asking those who might know. If anyone does know, then please provide that information.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

chatted with Platonides and the crosshatch is a killer and as it is a root domain page he suggested that we try something like sci-hub\.[a-z]+/(?!$) though I will note that we will need to watch for cyrllic and other xn/IDNA encoding.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
manually   changed special:diff/19894975  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Interesting concept. So that allows only the plain root domain (nothing after the TLD)? We'll have to monitor this. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Platonides and Billinghurst: So why does sci-hub\.[a-z]+(?!about) still match I can't get that to work. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Beetstra. That would allow the plain root domain. The whole adding an anchor of # at Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2020-01#Temporary_solution was for sites where the front page was a neutral landing page. There's actually no need to force such weird # or #about to be added. And if a spammer does spam their main page, the anchor wouldn't stop them either (they would spam that one).
As for the second question, you miss a / there, in order not to match you want sci-hub\.[a-z]+(?!/about)
Platonides (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Platonides: but the (?!about) is a lookahead - just like the positive lookahead in \byoutube\.com/.*(?:tqedszqxxzs|XePjp-H3TBI|khM48EQyVdc|A4jgXQQns8A|oVBOnv\-xrEY)\b is excluding links that have, somewhere in the end of the total link, one of the video codes (so, e.g. ''), here we want to exclude all 'sci-hub.[a-z]+' links that are NOT followed by 'about', that should allow '', but also '' and the intended ''. (I know the '#' is impossible to match here, that is a 'shortcoming' of the spam-blacklist (yet another, but this is low priority).
The problem is not the spamming of the mainpage (yes, they could spam the /about anyway), the problem is that if you allow the top domain only (e.g. through \$), that I could make with one edit millions of pages (on en.wikipedia only) uneditable, and link to probably 10s or 100s of thousands of copyright violations (yes, it is highly disruptive, and would likely earn you an immediate indef, but it may take quite some time to notice and will piss off the majority of the community until it gets resolved). That is why we whitelist only neutral landing pages on en.wikipedia, and here would only whitelist a specific link to the /about. Moreover, spammers are less inclined to spam their '/about' (they either don't know, it is not as profitable to do so, or not specific enough and would immediately be noticed). For the websites that are more of an abuse problem, abuse is less fun with a neutral landing page than with the front page. So, where possible, we should whitelist/exclude from blacklist ONLY neutral landing pages, not top domains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra, is linking to the mainpage (to an non-existant section there, actually). The whole idea to allow that was based on the premise that the domain top domain was the only neutral page to link. It may not be the case for this domain, but I'm working on that assumption as that's what was requested. I get the reasoning for /about, but that is a different case.
I don't see why one would cause errors in millions of pages but the other not, blacklisting both would have a similar disruption potential imho.
Note: the code you provide would forbid the top domain only (you probably meant \!$), that's the lookahead you were missing when compared with /about).
Platonides (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Platonides: was the example, the actual one is, currently, They now appear to have an about page, Yes, we want to forbid the top domain sci-hub.<tld>, we want to forbid everything on sci-hub.<tld> with as only exception the about page. That was previously on '' (a section on the mainpage), now it is at ''. Linking to the top-domain only is a) often the problem, b) often the one that is spammed, and c) abusable (and, as I said, if you allow me to use top domain, I can in one edit on en.wikipedia block editing on hundreds of thousands of pages and link to 10s of thousands of copyright violations). Linking to the top domain has to be avoided at all costs for most of the domains that we may need to link to, in other words, we need a way of excluding only a neutral landing page, like the about pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
a) Not the case of Sci-Hub. b) Not the case of Sci-Hub. c) Solved by using (sorry for not pointing out this URL earlier, I just discovered it). Please note that simply redirects to a section of the main page. Also, please note that it is possible to edit an article that has blacklisted links. --colt_browning (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have been testing \bsci-hub\.[a-z]{2,3}\/(?!.about) in combination with \bsci-hub\.[a-z]{2,3}$ in an online regex tester, which matches all urls of sci-hub I came up with except (the '#' is something you could replace with anything). When testing that here, it does not work. What is different in 'our' regex testing that makes this fail? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: No requirement to escape the forward slash per mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist#Blacklist_syntax … "Slashes don't need to be escaped by Backslashes. This will be done automatically by the script."  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I hate sloppy regexes. Anyway, it still doesn't work. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Is an Italian 4star hotel that needs to be added in Wikivoyage --Andyrom75 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andyrom75:   Removed from Spam blacklist. Though no promise that it will remain off it spammed us previously.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi I am not sure why this link is blacklisted from Wikipedia as it has a Wikipedia page about the company, can you let me know why? w:Thrive Global —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eighteighteight (talk)

Because it is an unreliable source, and there are good indications that it is being abused in links to wikis. Typical reason why domains are blacklisted.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Eighteighteight: And it looks like you would have a good idea why. Can I please direct you to comply with w:en:Wikipedia:paid editing and for you to understand why our terms of use require such declarations.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  Declined conversation not continued by contributor.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.

Site in spam blacklist


My site domain forexinworld added in spam blacklist? How can I remove from it. It's a request to you please remove my site from this list. ROZIHAJU (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't, we won't. It's a spam website. Stryn (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  Declined Please see removal instructions above.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Blacklist website

Spam notice coming up but no link on page. There is no link so why is blacklist preventing page save? FranzLisztKompositionen (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@FranzLisztKompositionen: There is not enough context to be able to answer your question. Which domain name are having blocked? At which wiki are you trying to edit? We may be able to assist if we can see the logs of the wiki, though we may need to refer you back to local administrators at that wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Spam on en.wikivoyage, commons, simple and enwiki; see User:COIBot/LinkReports/ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: It is a couple of users—who are the same user—and has been reverted. Are you happy if we just actively monitor? I did a bit of a tidy up of their edits earlier and set to monitor already. I am always hesitant blocking due to wikivoyage's different approach to tourism related sites.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the official web address of Pornhub (vandalism)

Someone has removed Pornhub's official web address and now I can't find a way to undo it. Ideas? Gikü (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Solved. A fellow admin deleted the page and restored all the versions except the ones starting with the diff. Gikü (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gikü: The local administrators can manage through a wiki's page Mediawiki:Spam-whitelist, and that can usually be a temporary addition while pages are manipulated; or as English Wikipedia often do in whitelist the descriptive "about us" pages of a blacklisted domain, as these are not typically spammed, or abusable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks! Gikü (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Main page for

Hi! Can the main page be excluded? It may be reasonable to do that on meta rather than whitelisting it on each of 8 editions which are having article about this website now. Track13 0_o 17:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts from anyone? It's ok if the answer is 'no'. I'll just whitelist it locally to use in ru:InfoWars then. But I was thinking that the link to the main page would be useful for other language editions as they have article about this website. And it would be easier to change record to '\binfowars\.com\/' on meta. Track13 0_o 13:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Track13: Please see the archived conversation Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2020-01#WD and blacklisted links from this page on some of the thoughts we had. At this time we generally advise that people whitelist the /about/ page rather than the root domain, as root domains are known to be abused.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, ok, got it. Thank you. Track13 0_o 11:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I am the new owner of the r10 site. Our page appears on the blacklist. We want to delete it from the Blacklist. Would you help me with this topic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

I am having a guess at That you are a new owner of the site may be nice, though it is not relevant to us nor why we blacklist. Please address the requirements for requests for removal as noted above.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I was working on articles related to casino and games on Wikipedia and recently created 10bet. Turns out official site is blacklisted. The official logs say it was banned back in 2007. I was referred to here by this request. Lunar Clock (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Generally we would say try a local whitelisting first, as generally once spammed it seems always spammed; here it is hard to know. @Lustiger seth and Ohnoitsjamie: do you have thoughts on the subject? I don't know the domain to know anything specific.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, Lustiger seth, Ohnoitsjamie, and Lunar Clock: If I recall correctly, most of these sites allow(ed) for referral spamming or affiliate programs, which was I think the reason that it got blocked there (it was not always url parameters even ..). There are also some problematic edits in the nearer past with these sites, see en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/10Bet,_LLC, linked to a Single-Purpose Account. According to COIBot's LinkReport, there however are no attempts like that in the near past, and I can see that these sites might become notable in itself. Maybe we should try and delete it here, and monitor what happens (and them maybe just try to stop the referral/affiliate spam if it reoccurs). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we anticipate that 10bet would be a useful reference outside of the en:10bet article? Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie: may be not. I guess allowing it on the Wikipedia page as a official site link is the only use case here. Thoughts? And @Beetstra: I agree here. We may have to keep an eye on these sites and monitor them for a while. Lunar Clock (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, Lustiger seth, Ohnoitsjamie, and Lunar Clock: Maybe we should globally exclude the /about, similar to what we discussed below for WikiData. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. Lunar Clock (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Beetstra: and about the neutral landing page, the 10bet has something like About page gives 404. How do we handle that? Lunar Clock (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Lunar Clock: it is —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Beetstra: I was going through the archives and I found this example. I believe above mentioned case is very same. It can be blacklisted if found spamming again. Lunar Clock (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Lunar Clock: it is not similar, here I gave an example of a deleted page from less than 3 years ago that was deleted on reasons of notability and advertising. And a ‘oh, it is 10 years ago’ argument does not work with me, I have documented cases on en.wikipedia where the spamming spans many years. It pays their bills. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Pardon, but for the box under #Proposed removals, shouldn't we add something to let requesters know that e.g. "Can't add values on Wikidata shouldn't be a reason to remove entries, and for Wikidata users there should have solutions within the Wikibase software"? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: better to incorporate it as a section for 'recurring requests'. We can then just 'decline, see recurring requests'. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Self-published site that’s mainly used to provide cover for autobiographies and other such spam. (Related discussion). Thanks --Alaa :)..! 03:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose to add this website to the blacklist because "Heraldrys Institute of Rome" is clearly a commercial website and there is no "Heraldry's Institute" in Rome. This website sells customized researches about surnames and family trees, including papers with coats of arms, but there's no historical accuracy and they simply use random stuff they find on the internet and put it together pretending it to be a research about family history. Using this website as a source in writing articles is clearly spam, plus it is misleading and it contributes to spread false facts into Wikipedia.--Alienautic (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the link actually spammed? I've searched for it globally and it seems it's added by article authors, and that it's present in a lot of articles naturally. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It's more an "unintentional spam". It's used by some authors who are unaware it is a commercial website and not an actual "Institute of Heraldry", and they think it can be used as a reliable source. In the Italian Wikipedia we remove links to that website when we found them, but it's difficult to check it every time, especially the other Wikipedias. I found this website used as source in English, Spanish and Protuguese, and non-Italian users are allegedly misled by this pompous name "Heraldry's Institute of Rome", unaware there is no such institute in Rome, Italy.--Alienautic (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Alienautic: No wiki is blacklisting it and it is has been used hundreds of times. To blacklist it based on the request of a user is difficult. I have set it to be monitored and we can watch reports, however, we would have an expectation that sites would blacklist problematic sites.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought it could be a good way to avoid people to spread false fact into Wikipedia. If this is not the correct page to ask such a request, I apologize. Anyway, now has been added to unwanted links page in the Italian Wikipedia. I can easily verify in, but the problem is this website is also used in other Wikipedias. Thank you for your monitoring and reports.--Alienautic (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Alienautic. My comments are solely relating to the guidance on the top of the page about what we can immediately do. I am not querying your knowledge or your judgment, just stating the ability of meta administrators to act unilaterally. Getting it blacklisted at itWP is definitely a start to addressing the issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2020-03" page.