Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2020-05

Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

See COIBot report. Spam from eight accounts/IPs on five wikis, over the last month. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow:   Added to Spam blacklist. Good catch. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Already blacklisted

- already blocked for spamming

To blacklist:

  • Link/text requested to be blacklisted:
    • aiou account
  • Link/text requested to be blacklisted:
    • tamilrockers2020 account
  • Link/text requested to be blacklisted:
    • hammadshifa97 account.
  • Link/text requested to be blacklisted:
  • Link/text requested to be blacklisted:

This may need future monitoring. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 May 2020 (2)

Veredictor (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Veredictor:   Added to Spam blacklist. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 May 2020

Veredictor (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Veredictor:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

apart from being a free hosting site with no explicit guarantee about the reliability of its content (which makes it unsuitable as source according to wikipedia's standards), the biggest problem is that this site is largely linked and a lot of sites hosted here are spam and dens of malicious software. -- Blackcat (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This website has 24,652 additions on dozens of projects, and not many are spam. I don't think any global action is warranted at this time, however it is a free hosting site. Pinging Billinghurst for their opinion. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I would think that it would be a very bold decision to blacklist without seeking the broad consensus of the community. Please look at the criteria at the top of the page to even start a conversation for a global block. I would think that this should be a conversation to whichever wiki you see that the link addition is problematic. I don't see an abuse filter at enWP that even restricts its use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Blackcat:   Declined Per no consensus here to blacklist and we on meta works on consensus. If you deemed it is problematic, talk to local sysops on the local spam blacklist pages. If there are more than 5 large projects having agreed this on their spam blacklist, we can then repeat this conversation. I am seeing a large amount of usage and not all are spamming. We don't typically blacklist hosting sites unless a huge part of their content are problematic and multiple wikis are considering it as problematic. Please talk to local sysops on the various wikis for local blacklisting first, if deemed necessary by them. Regards, Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: Ok, thanks for your time. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

See COIBot report. Multiple IPs and accounts, each engaging in rapidfire, bot-like spamming. Special:CentralAuth/Madtt, at least, hit four wikis. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow:   Added to Spam blacklist (logged linking to User:COIBot/XWiki/ to help with the record keeping) --DannyS712 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

See COIBot report. Spam from over a dozen IPS and single-purpose accounts on about 10 wikis over the few weeks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow:   Added to Spam blacklist. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

See COIBot report. Multiple IPs and accounts over the last few months. Mostly enwiki, but hit hiwiki and bhwiki as well. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow:   Declined for now, last link was 2 months ago as far as I can tell. DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Congratulations on the new bit! Well, Beetstra sent me here from the enwiki blacklist. I thought it was borderline, but I'll let y'all decide which blacklist is better. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow: added it to enWP's revertlist, and set the domain to be monitored more closely by COIBot; it seems to be enWP only at this time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712, Billinghurst, and Suffusion of Yellow: the last link was on 8/5. Some of the editors have been hitting the same article, and this is clearly spam. It is based in India, and besides spamming en.wikipedia heavily they have hit ‘home languages’ as well. I have no faith that the message will come across if we onle block en.wikipedia, this sock/meatfarm is clearly insisting to spam this material. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that I doubt that they will learn, which is why I plugged it into be monitored. If I see it pop up again through xwiki monitoring in an unreasonable sense, I won't be concerned about pulling the trigger.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

casino sites

Requested in an protected edit request below by User:Luzzbel. Luzzbel, please give a good reason in your reply to this section. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This sites only promotes affiliates programms—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luzzbel (talk)
Note: this request was originally posted in the same format as that was earlier used by user:Veredictor. User:Luzzbel, can you please elaborate, are you the same user? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Luzzbel:   Declined due to lack of a response and evidence that these are needed on the blacklist DannyS712 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam, see COIBot report, looks like a blog without any redeeming encyclopedic value. Creffett (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett:   Added to Spam blacklist. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Basem barry spamming

Xwiki spamming by Basem barry sock farm — JJMC89(T·C) 06:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@JJMC89: why not just blacklist on enwiki? The sockmaster isn't globally locked, and a quick scan suggested that the socks only edited on enwiki. Tentatively   Deferred to the enwiki spam blacklist --DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
There are accounts noted in COI bot reports that have been spamming these links on other wikis besides enwiki. Those accounts are not noted in the SPI if they don't have an attached account at enwiki. For example, has 10 accounts that spammed it on a wiki other than enwiki. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@JJMC89:   Added all to Spam blacklist; didn't realize, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

URL shortener found in spam link on Commons. --Achim (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Achim55:   Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Abused to hijack the official website on wiki. Redirects to the .com which is registered to the company. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra:   Added to Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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


Hello! I tried to create an article about AliExpress on Slovenian Wikipedia. It is the same as in English Wikipedia, but when I tried to save it (on Slovenian Wikipedia), it said that is on a Spam blacklist, and to report it here. Can you please help me? Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitjas1 (talk)

@Mitjas1: We won't be removing it from the spam blacklist based on a single request. You will need to coordinate with local administrators at slWP and see if they are willing to whitelist the domain, or a specific url to allow you to add the url. I would suggest that you seek help at their administrator noticeboard or equivalent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thank you. I will try that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitjas1 (talk)

  Declined should be managed using local whitelists  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


Hi! Is this record still actual? I'm asking because this regex blocks 17 existing links in ruwiki, details can be found here. It can be that blocking FirstName-LastName in any external link is not longer a good idea. Track13 0_o

@Track13: I believe that this rule is regarding the domainname, not when it is used in the latter part of the url: might just be possible. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Track13: is not: --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, it's my fault, I didn't double check results. Thank you Dirk Beetstra Track13 0_o 15:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  Comment I can say that I have played with this at various times, so this is experience related, not knowledge of the code. It is a little quirky with how it works, however for the string alone, per your example, that needs to be a tie to the base domain name associated with a protocol. There is a bit of an exemption that I will throw in, that when it is part of a redirecting url, ie.<interveningstring>

then it also will get caught. It appears to reset for the protocol component appearing later in the string, so it is not base domain alone. Noting that if we blocked


that would block as base domain as TLD exists. I have utilised this latter form against some of our very repetitive spambots.

To the example itself, one wonders whether we need the string any more, the spammers have and porn being advertised no longer focuses on Paris.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Track13: inclined to decline at this point of time; further clarity of the issue needed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
billinghurst, thank you for the explanation, no further actions required. Track13 0_o 11:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Track13:   Declined Requestor withdrawn. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that this domain is blacklisted. I am requesting to please unblock the domain. It has a lot of very in-depth articles about SARMs (Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators) and some other research chemicals as well. The articles are very long and contain scientific citations. For example, the article about Cardarine has over 5000 words.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattResearching (talk)

@MattResearching: This was spammed and hence blacklisted. That an external site has a lot of information does not mean that we have to link to it, you'll have to elaborate more on the intended use. Also, I wonder how you found out it was blacklisted in the first place. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I was researching some research chemicals. I googled GW50156 and suprisingly that site shows above wikipedia. This is because wikipedia has very little information about this research chemical. I wanted to fill in some information like for example, the human trials that were done, the risk of cancer, the dosages that were used in animal studies, etc. These are all very important things for people who will want to research this research chemical in the future. So this website (sarmguide), had all of this information and because of this, I thought that it was appropriate to link to it as a resource. For example, there is nothing about gw50156 and its correlation to cancer on wikipedia, on that website, however, there is over a 1000 word section that links studies and overall has very useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattResearching (talk)

@MattResearching: Probably worthwhile reading WP:Reliable sources. I wouldn't favour removing this from the blacklist as I don't consider anything else but a promotional sales pitch, though I recuse myself from the decision.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I research these research chemicals quite extensively and when it comes to reliable sources for information about these chemicals, this source is much more reliable than some other ones that are being cited. That's because unlike the other sources, this one clearly states that GW50156 (for the sake of this example) is a research chemical that isn't approved for human consumption and then goes on to explain the positive and negative things about it. How is this a "sales pitch" when it says that you risk cancer by taking this chemical.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattResearching (talk)

@MattResearching:. First, can you please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes ('~~~~') at the end of your comment? Secondly, a disclaimer, I am a chemist.
I have been looking at this site. If I compare the references in en:Enobosarm (the official name of this specific SARM) with the information on the site ( I don't think that I would regard the information on sarmguide anything more reliable than the publications that are already used on en.wikipedia. Secondly, there is .. written as a very personal recommendation, stating e.g. 'I’ve bought SARMs from almost every single company on the market that delivers to my country (Australia).' .. that is not a professional review, it is a personal comment.
Hence,   Declined. If you want to continue to use this site, I would suggest that you make a very good argument for a specific use and a specific url on the site on a local whitelist (e.g. en:WT:SWL for en.wikipedia), but I doubt htat this would even come close to passing en:WP:MEDRS. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove casinos's spam

bcasinocomparador\.com bapuestasonline\.net bjuegos-casino\.org bapuestasfree\.com bcasinotopsonline\.com bcasino\.org --Luzzbel (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Luzzbel: Please read the instructions at the top, I will move these in the correct section, but you'll need to give a good reason. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Luzzbel:   Declined no reason given DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Per discussion. This is the official website. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra:   Removed from Spam blacklist. See registration record. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


  This section is for archiving Discussions.

I was trying to add link. It seems domain is blacklisted. I have to link one article. May I know the reason for it to be blocked? Requesting to please unblock the domain. TruthPrevails12 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  not globally blocked @TruthPrevails12: you will need to take this up at English Wikipedia   Defer to w:en:Mediawiki talk:spam-blacklist  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Two third level domains were proposed, and, why other web pages should suffer is not clear, could not find any arguments. Macuser (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Macuser: They are clearly blocked a long while ago. You can seek local whitelisting of the domains at the wiki of interest. Can you tell us why you think that the domains are useful to Wikimedia sites? There is nothing evident at the sites themselves that give evidence that they are needed and reliable sites that would be used by the Wikimedia communities, there is no general path access to look at their value. To be removed from the blacklist needs an argument to remove.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The is dead, there is nothing evident it will be linked for spam. Local history site for Tiversk was hosted there, with quite irreplaceable collection of soviet time newspapers' headlines.Macuser (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Macuser: if there is pertinent information it is likely best to whitelist the specific document (or document tree or subdomain). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


There have been periodic discussions over renaming this feature, in part because not all blacklisted links are in fact spam (e.g. URL shorteners). In the light of the recent announcement by the UK's National Cyber Security Centre that it will no longer use the terms blacklist and whitelist, I think it might be worth considering the one-time disruption that would be caused by a change to something like "external link deny list". JzG (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Think that the whole conversation belongs on mediawikiwiki, maybe at mw:Extension talk:SpamBlacklist or in a phabricator: ticket. Probably phabricator if you want to get the attention of mediawiki developers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
That is where it would go from here, but I would first like to establish whether there is consensus that this is a good idea. JzG (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not certain that this is the place for that consensus. Personally I am focused on the functionality, and that any future functionality can be maintained with the minimal amount of work. If the name is considered problematic and insulting, then it seems worthwhile having that discussion wherever it is held.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
There is phab:T16719#4079220, which is a (declined) task about renaming the list and links to two more tasks about renaming the list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure. So... where? JzG (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Support I think it would be good to get the misnomer (and stigmatization) out of the way MediaWiki-wide. I know it was originally written just to combat spam, but it has become more than that, and the argument is there regularly 'but it was not spammed, remove it from this list' (not that it matters). I presume this needs to go through a phab ticket, and it may have technical problems to do this. Alternatively, if the extension could be rewritten so wikis would be able to choose which page (or pages, which would be great) and give their own name would be containing the regexes . --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with this but I also wish we had multiple lists, or the ability to comment more easily, so that the list could have more nuance. For example, "\bgoatse\.info\b" is not allowed a link for a very different reason than what most people think of as "spam". I don't know the history on "\bbible\-history\.com\b" but given that it looks like a fairly innocuous (but probably not WP:RS) site I wonder if someone was being a jerk and going around actually 'spamming' by adding too links over and over.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC) - from [1]
  • I've got no issues with the terms "blacklist" or "whitelist" they are industry terms and well understood. No concerns with rename from "spam" to something more specific like "Link blacklist". — xaosflux Talk 16:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: should be kept as "spam blacklist". 20:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to add to the global spam blacklist earlier this year is in the English Wikipedia spam blacklist entry. over the years has published fake news, conspiracy theories and propaganda, just like Alex Jones' InfoWars.The Guardian I think that should be added to the global spam blacklist in order to prevent COVID-19-related conspiracy theories. 22:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There would appear to be 38,082 uses across the wikis if global search tells me the truth. I do not think that this can be determined with a simple conversation here. It would require numbers of wikis to independently start blacklisting it and reach the criteria expressed above; or a sizeable groundswell of opinion that the domain is problematic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2020-05" page.