Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Mike.lifeguard (talk | contribs) at 16:59, 5 July 2008. It may differ significantly from the current version.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests and proposals Spam blacklist Archives (current)→
The associated page is used by the Mediawiki Spam Blacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist. There is also a more aggressive way to block spamming through direct use of $wgSpamRegex. Only developers can make changes to $wgSpamRegex, and its use is to be avoided whenever possible.

For more information on what the spam blacklist is for, and the processes used here, please see Spam blacklist/About.

Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, or Troubleshooting and problems, read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In addition to that, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. Other discussions related to this last, but that are not a problem with a particular link please see, Spam blacklist policy discussion.

Completed requests are archived (list, search), additions and removal are logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|1072132#{{subst:anchorencode:section name here}}}}

If you cannot find your remark below, please do a search for the URL in question with this Archive Search tool.

Spam that only affects single project should go to that project's local blacklist

Proposed additions

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (, not Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users on multiple wikis. Completed requests will be marked as {{added}} or {{declined}} and archived.

Commercial vaporiser company spam

  • Already was active on several Wikipedia's tried wiki-nl today. MoiraMoira 13:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Given the long-term history and recent activity, Added Added  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting.... Looks like a shoot out at the "vaporiser corral"! --Herby talk thyme 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
From w:User talk:Mike.lifeguard

Dear Lifeguard,

you have blacklisted linking to on vaporizer articles, which I believe is wrong as the website provides detailed information and comprehensive descriptions. I have exchanged a link repeatedly from a simply commercial platform to the manufactuer's site to maintain a source with more background than just "BUY THIS". Please reconsider blacklisting, as you can see in scientific articles being published the volcano vaporizer is an interesting device. Thank you ! Esender1 (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Esender1 +

This is related to earlier blacklisted link


The link was also inserted in de.wikipedia and ja.wikipedia today, after the link was removed there yesterday.

The link has been inserted by the same IP earlier too:

  • Google Adsense ID 4468137526996497

  • Google Adsense ID 4468137526996497

The IP has been warned: nn:Brukardiskusjon:

--Jorunn 22:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed thanks & Added Added --Herby talk thyme 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I already added it to the blacklist because it's being spammed right now. However, there are quite a few links added by others. Therefore, I only reverted 79.205.*.*'s edits. I'm not sure if it really should be blacklisted. Any thoughts? Perhaps we should remove it in a week? --Erwin(85) 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't have much time currently to look in-depth, but remember that the blacklist now blocks only new additions of links, it does not prevent you from saving a page which already had that link. This means the links already in existence are "safe" and we only need to worry about whether there will be future need to link to this domain that cannot be managed effectively and efficiently by whitelisting.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Another case for global blocking. I agree we don't need to leave this blacklisted, but since pre-existing links are unaffected, there's no rush to remove it. Perhaps give it a week to get the point across.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fansite edit-warring on en, da and fi, lots of IP spammers. Also present on 20 other wikis. See w:WT:WPSPAM#James Last Not sure how to deal with this one (permanent link). MER-C 09:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - agreed. Fansites generally are inappropriate & warring fansites even more so. Added Added --Herby talk thyme 09:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I generated the COIBot report for some extra information, that alone should have been enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed additions (Bot reported)

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for websites which have been added to multiple wikis as observed by a bot.

Items there will automatically be archived by the bot when they get stale.

Sysops, please change the LinkStatus template to closed ({{LinkStatus|closed}}) when the report is dealt with, and change to ignore for good links ({{LinkStatus|ignore}}). More information can be found at User:SpamReportBot/cw/about

These are automated reports, please check the records and the link thoroughly, it may be good links! For some more info, see Spam blacklist/help#SpamReportBot_reports

If the report contains links to less than 5 wikis, then only add it when it is really spam. Otherwise just revert the link-additions, and close the report, closed reports will be reopened when spamming continues.

Please place suggestions on the automated reports in the discussion section.


Running, will report a certain domain shortly after a link is used more than 2 times by one user on more than 2 wikipedia (technically: when more than 66% of this link has been added by this user, and more than 66% of this link were added XWiki). Same system as SpamReportBot (discussions after the remark "<!-- Please put comments after this remark -->" at the bottom; please close reports when reverted/blacklisted/waiting for more or ignore when good link)

List Last update By Site IP R Last user Last link addition User Link User - Link User - Link - Wikis Link - Wikis 2021-11-28 20:13:08 COIBot
2070-01-01 05:00:00 10 2 2021-11-28 20:41:10 COIBot R Ivan Avz F
2070-01-01 05:00:00 17 8 2021-11-28 19:29:16 COIBot R حاتم البوعناني 2070-01-01 05:00:00 2503 4 0 0 2 2021-11-28 14:26:31 COIBot
2070-01-01 05:00:00 26 2 2021-11-28 20:50:37 COIBot 2A00:23C6:9108:3100:65D9:4853:A800:933A
Varban Ivankov
Zara Stepanyan(DD)
2070-01-01 05:00:00 26 8 2021-11-28 20:44:36 COIBot R 919sth.
2070-01-01 05:00:00 27 9 2021-11-28 20:33:52 COIBot R 2070-01-01 05:00:00 5 1286 0 0 0 2021-11-28 21:25:17 COIBot R Dispe
2070-01-01 05:00:00 22 14

Proposed removals

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements.

I wanted to add the external link http://www.holocaustresearchproject .org/ghettos/riga.html (Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team: The Killings at Riga) to a page. What is the reason that this domain is at the blacklist? SchirmerPower 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The link was added per request. Is the site more accurate now? I for one can't judge that. Not sure about removing, so I'm leaving this to someone else. --Erwin(85) 11:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I am baffled why this was ever blacklisted. It is well-written and seems to be accurate. It should be removed at once.--Cato 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The logic behind the original listing is as linked by Erwin and seems to have been perfectly valid. The lost appropriate course of action would be to get hold on some en wp (or other languages) editors with knowledge of the subject to assess whether it can now be considered a reliable source. Until such opinions are given de-listing may be premature. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So it's been declared a non-reliable site on the basis of criticism on a blogspot? And why should I be presumed not to have knowledge of the subject? I repeat that the Riga page seems to be accurate.--Cato 12:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what the history is only that it was decided it was unreliable. My understanding was that you were not active on Wikipedias and so I suggested looking for some from en (or other) wikis for their views - is that so unreasonable? In practice almost nothing gets removed from here "at once" as you will see if you run through the archives. Mistakes apart some time for input from others is the normal practice here. Other views are very welcome indeed. --Herby talk thyme 13:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that because I mainly edit EN:WQ I wasn't in a position to comment in an area where in fact I have some expertise, and that the views of people active on EN:WP or some other WP would be needed.--Cato 14:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it -maybe- possible to exclude the "Riga" page from the blacklist until the rest of the domain is cleared? SchirmerPower 08:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest in the short term you look for local whitelisting if this is inconveniencing you. I'm guessing "de" is the appropriate wiki for you &, if so, you would ask here. Equally then if you want an aspect of the site still unavailable you can seek blacklisting of that specific url locally too? I hope that helps for now. Regards --Herby talk thyme 10:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I will ask there for putting the link on the local whitelist. SchirmerPower 11:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked round the site, and it seems very good. Why it was blacklisted in the first place seems odd, and I cannot see that continuing the blacklist can benefit the project. (CoI: I lost several relatives in the Holocaust.)--Yehudi 08:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The site was spammed by

I temporarily added the site already, because the user was creating empty pages with that link only cross-wiki. (Many might have been deleted already). Maybe the link has to be removed again, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks possibly worth removing to me - anyone else think so?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm in two minds here. The "emergency" listing was exactly correct and consideration for removal is right. However, after looking the site has no relevance to any project and the behaviour is such that they may try again. View welcome. --Herby talk thyme 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I must say I agree with Herby here, which is why I hesitated to remove it the next day already... I have not added it to the log yet though, I will do that as soon as it is clear what do to here :) Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it might be marginally useful, but given the history here I'd be fine to leave as-is, and log it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Added Logged then.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Link with

I'm not sure why I cannot add this site to my new page Tokyo Prostitution. It provides a good perspective in the area of prostitution in Tokyo. The only site I added it to was Japan Prostitution, what I thought was relevant. There has been no other adding or spamming - so it this considered "widespread, unmanageable spamming"? (the stated cause for blacklisting) Thanks. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 Jul 2008 (UTC)

OK - first of all it is not blacklisted here. However, looking at your contributions of Wikipedia they consist of link placement only. Such behaviour is likely to be seen as "spamming". Certainly if you continue doing so I would imagine you will be blocked &, ultimately, your site may be blacklisted here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This was previously discussed in this archived talk page more than a year ago, but it was denied with the comment "Not done - unless jimbo changes his mind :D" Considering the time that has passed, and the original illegal reason for upholding of the block, I felt it was useful to bring it up again.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia is supposed to be relatively democratic, no? I can see if Jimbo had more pull than the average Wikipedian, but Jimbo seems to have given no reason for the block (at least none in the changelog, and none in the linked discussion) and nobody came forward in the previous discussion with a good reason for the block. To me, and to nearly all the people in the previous discussion, there is no rational reason to block It contains a great deal of useful first-hand information created by and about all sorts of notable people. Bands, celebrities and regular joes all have MySpace pages, and all my include information in their personal blog which could be useful as a source.

If you'll look at the EN whitelist request page, 6 of the 17 request are currently for MySpace blogs, so it's obviously resource people would like to use.

Certainly there is bad information on MySpace, but so too is there bad information on all the web. People claim MySpace is unverifiable or too personal a communication to be included in Wikipedia, but it's just as verifiable as Joe Blow celebrity's homepage (maybe more so, since the MySpace page is often updated more frequently than official homepages,) which we consider perfectly OK to link to. I see no reason why MySpace blog references can't be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; contested if wrong, removed if non-notable, banned if actual spam. Just because it's a popular page doesn't mean it should suffer. It may host a large amount of bad information, but only because it hosts a large amount of information in general.

Unless I'm overlooking some bylaw, subsection 12, paragraph 3, I can see no reason to block other than the unjustified caprice of Jimbo, the indulgence of which would go against everything Wikipedia stands for -- not to mention hurt a reputation already sullied by accusations of cliquishness and insider dealings. — Magicmat 11:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing this would be a dreadful idea. At present blogs have to be whitelisted to be included, which keeps the flood manageable. You have no idea how much blog spam we have to clean up, I think all the major blog hosts should be blacklisted due to long-term abuse as "sources", spamming, attacks and all manner of other nonsense. JzG 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that removing this would be a terrible idea. Surprisingly, I acutally agree that we should consider blacklisting some of the major blog & free hosting services so that inclusion must be determined on a case-by-case basis (or wikis which prefer allowing unrestricted additions of these domains may whitelist them entirely). Geocities, for example, is really not something we should be linking to for references or links. This would of course require significantly more discussion and cross-wiki participation than most blacklisting we do, so I'd invite comments from the regulars before considering whether to solicit external opinions on this.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree here, whitelisting is the way to go, that keeps the flood manageable. Blog-sites are a big problem on many pages, on en-wiki quite a number of them are on XLinkBot's revertlist. Putting them on the blacklist and request specific whitelisting may be a good way. That a link exists does not mean that it has to be included NOW, in a couple of days is also fine, which would give time to whitelist the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If only XLinkBot were elsewhere too...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was this link deleted? This website provides valuable information to people interested in the football club. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Not blacklisted - where was it removed from (which page & which wiki). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an xwiki report from COIBot. I think Mike.lifeguard reverted the additions. Site may be appropriate on en, not sure if it has to be everywhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that it was added all at once by a single user, I did revert the additions. That does not mean it is totally inappropriate for inclusion, just that the manner in which it was being included was not for the benefit of the projects. If you wish to include it on somewhere, you may do so as long as it's addition is in line with whatever policies and guidelines there are on the subject, and you are adding it to improve the wiki (and no other reason). As this is not blacklisted, there is nothing further for us to do here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, I disagree. The club has many French, German-speaking people looking to find out info about the club. As there is no CFR website in French or German, people tend to look for one that is in the international language (English). By having a link to the only CFR English website in the articles, anyone who is interested in the club can find out more detailed informantion in a language that they can actually understand. By the way, what exactly are the policies and guidelines on the subject?

P.S. Herby: the article is on CFR Cluj

Link with

Hey there, this site is blacklisted since May 22nd on Ani Difranco related articles. It is a the most active fan site about this singer on the net. Please consider removing the blacklisting. See user:COIBot/XWiki/ Thanks and sorry for not being 100% how to post comments. Moogz The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moogz (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Fan-forum. If specific links are useful somewhere on a wiki, I would consider asking for whitelisting of a specific url on a specific wiki. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
To me the default setting for fansites is that they are not required (mainly because you could get a massive flood of then legitimate links as anyone & everyone creates fansites). Certainly locally whitelisting where a community approve would seem the best approach. --Herby talk thyme 09:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Moogz So linking to our concert and setlist database would be more appropriate for example? Moogz 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Our concert and setlist database? You may want to review e.g. en:Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest (quite some other languages have a similar guideline). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Declined Declined I think. Fansites not usually appropriate & a COI issue as well. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

bacause it only gives Bad Request (Invalid Hostname). --WikedKentaur 05:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This was blacklisted by User:Nick1915 after this request. If it returns an error there is no reason to link to it, and given past problems, I'm reluctant to de-list it in case it is fixed and spammed. Perhaps that's too paranoid.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The web really isn't any spam, could you remove it from the list of blocked pages? PAJD,

The main reason for blacklisting this site is the excessive linking. Besides that, I don't think the site is very useful for other languages. Therefore, I'm reluctant to remove it. You could consider whitelisting the site at cswiki. --Erwin(85) 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).



poking COIBot

I notice that sometimes people who are not active on IRC need some link reports. Admins here can now add {{LinkSummary|domain}} to User:COIBot/Poke, when COIBot picks up the edit to that page (and it should), it will put the domains into its reporting queue (high priority, which is, only behind waiting XWiki reports) and create a report on the link(s). The first report should be saved within about 5 minutes, if it takes longer than 15 minutes there is probably something wrong, and it may be useful to add the template with the link again (it reads the added part of the diffs (the right column)), or poke me or another person who is active on IRC personally. Hope this is of help. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't overuse the functionality, everything still needs to be saved. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorting - UTC

The COIBot reports now are/should be sorted by time, newest records at the bottom. The newer records are now stored in UTC, and there is a bot busy with converting the time of the old records to UTC. When the time is in UTC, it will show ' (UTC)' behind the timestamp. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Already reverted?

OK, here's another thing for lazy people: tools:~erwin85/xwiki.php. If you enter the title of a report, or link to it directly like xwiki.php?report=User:COIBot/XWiki/, it gets the diffs from the report and checks the database to see whether or not it's the top edit and how many pages still link to the domain. Could make reverting a bit less work. Beetstra, could you add a link in new reports? Suggestions are welcome. --Erwin(85) 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks useful, but using it on User:COIBot/XWiki/ it has the sentence "Retrieved 7 edits from User:COIBot/XWiki/ Searching for 'http://com.battiatoweb.%'." -- the domain is incorrect, but it appears to be searching for the correct domain.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The database uses that format for el_index, see database structure. The search value should be 'http://com.example.%' for and 'http://com.example.sub.%' for I guess it allows for faster indexing. The value is shown so you can check whether it actually searches for the correct value. --Erwin(85) 07:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm .. why not link it in the {{LinkSummary}} for the appropriate linkrecords? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Great work Erwin & appreciated. I think worth bearing in mind that the fact that the link placement is not the last edit doesn't actually mean it has been reverted though. I've found times when that was not the case (particularly when some language bot passes by). I'll look at the tool more later or tomorrow. --Herby talk thyme 09:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, you should check the link count and not only the edits. All edits since the reported one are now listed, thanks to Beetstra for the suggestion, and it works for all three bot reports. --Erwin(85) 10:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
And I adapted the {{LinkSummary}} accordingly .. someone suggestions for something which is more appropriate than '(clear?)'? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 10:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible instead of listing edits since the domain was added to have it do a linksearch on the apporpriate wiki, and return whether or not the page in question currently has the link? That would be much easier than looking at a bunch of edits since the diff provided.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Also your edit to {{linksummary}} makes things not fit :( I will fix it shortly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think it already does a linksearch on each relevant wiki, which makes this ridiculously useful :D  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It indeed counts the number of links. It now also returns the pages linking to the domain and marks reported pages with links with (L). --Erwin(85) 10:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
That is so good. BIG thanks Erwin (& we've just been chasing the same one :)). --Herby talk thyme 10:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I added support for User:Mike.lifeguard/removespam.js. That script does a search and replace for the given domain, set a default or given summary and show the changes. All you need to do is click save if you agree. Of course, you need to add the script to your monobook.js for each wiki. --Erwin(85) 11:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If you look at User:Mike.lifeguard/thing there is a script to load a script from meta, which you can use to load a standard script for every wiki. This lets you manage that script in one location.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the blacklist

For some time, folks all over have been wanting to rename the blacklist to remove the S-word. This would reduce the ability of people to complain about cases where a domain is legitimately blacklisted, but is not spam. Currently we get "Hey! You're calling me a spammer - that's defamation/libel!" even in cases where the complainant didn't link that site, so we are not calling them a spammer (nor are we necessarily calling their site spam). Since we legitimately use the blacklist to block domains which are not actually spam this is not a policy change. We already use the spam blacklist to block domains that are not spammed, and domains which are not spam - this change would reflect the reality and would reduce complaints as described above. Since there has already been discussion in the past, and that discussion was largely in favour, I have created bugzilla:14719. Please comment here, but if you know of places on the mailing lists, or on the wikis where this has already been discussed, it may be worth adding to the bug.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As a general note, I think it is a misconception that people define a link as spam, it is in my opinion the way it is added ('pushed'). I concur with renaming, though, as it just generates unnecessery 'problems', and takes the ones out which are neither spam nor spammed (redirect sites). Could we have some poll with some suggestions, e.g. on metapub? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Just go vote on the bug Mike has created I think. There was discussion here a while back where all agreed anyway - just nothing happened. --Herby talk thyme 09:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - yet another poll or discussion is not really necessary. There is already agreement to do this, it is only the implementation we're waiting for.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)