Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Spam Blacklist)
The associated page is used by the MediaWiki Spam Blacklist extension, and lists regular expressions which cannot 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; either manually or with SBHandler. For more information on what the spam blacklist is for, and the processes used here, please see Spam blacklist/About.

Proposed additions
Please provide evidence of spamming on several wikis. Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist. Exceptions include malicious domains and URL redirector/shortener services. Please follow this format. Please check back after submitting your report, there could be questions regarding your request.
Proposed removals
Please check our list of requests which repeatedly get declined. Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. Please consider whether requesting whitelisting on a specific wiki for a specific use is more appropriate - that is very often the case.
Other discussion
Troubleshooting and problems - If there is an error in the blacklist (i.e. a regex error) which is causing problems, please raise the issue here.
Discussion - Meta-discussion concerning the operation of the blacklist and related pages, and communication among the spam blacklist team.
#wikimedia-external-linksconnect - Real-time IRC chat for co-ordination of activities related to maintenance of the blacklist.
There is no global whitelist, so if you are seeking a whitelisting of a url at a wiki then please address such matters via use of the respective Mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist page at that wiki, and you should consider the use of the template {{edit protected}} or its local equivalent to get attention to your edit.

Please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. This leaves a signature and timestamp so conversations are easier to follow.

Completed requests are marked as {{added}}/{{removed}} or {{declined}}, and are generally archived quickly. Additions and removals are logged · current log 2024/04.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

Proposed additions[edit]

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.[edit]

Gambling spam - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to add \bqh88 as a stem after a bit of cleanup. Count Count (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XXBlackburnXx: Added Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling Spam[edit]

X-wiki gambling spam, see Spamcheck Seawolf35 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seawolf35: Added Added to Spam blacklist. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Cross-wiki spam, redirector to binance referral link. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XXBlackburnXx: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --XXBlackburnXx (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Cross-wiki spam, continued after global (b)locking. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XXBlackburnXx: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --XXBlackburnXx (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Gambling spam - likely usurped. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XXBlackburnXx: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --XXBlackburnXx (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Excessive spam - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XXBlackburnXx: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --XXBlackburnXx (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Excessive spam - editors are well meaning, but the source is apologetics en:WP:CB. Gotquestions is written by anonymous and often amateur theologians. It's a 100% fundamentalist Protestant website, not claiming to speak in the name of any particular denomination. Rumor has it they are Baptists, but they never overtly claim that. Reason: Baptism is the only denomination they do not lambast.

Reason for blacklisting: many Wikipedians are misled into thinking it is a reliable source, while it has none of the characteristics of a reliable source. The only reason for them thinking that it is a valid source is because it agrees with fundamentalist Christianity. This is a fishy website, unlike, say, quoting the President of the Southern Baptist Convention for what Southern Baptists believe. Because then there is someone having authority speaking, and the claim can be attributed to a specific denomination. Gotquestions has no authority, be it academic clout or religious leadership, and has no mandate or credentials of publicly representing any Christian denomination. They are a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who lie by omission, namely through concealing their religious affiliation.

Christians in China, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia have to conceal their faith. The website is not registered in North Korea. Nor, speaking of Christians persecuting Christians deemed heretical, in Eritrea ([1] and en:Religion in Eritrea).

On LinkedIn they state they are "non-denominational". They also state "We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental," but these do no go together with "and non-denominational." Of course "non-denominational" is a concealed denomination. I am prepared to believe they are an autonomous church, but not that they don't have theological dogmas. And having theological dogmas is a denomination in nuce. If we take their claim at face value, it means they are the church of the theological en:WP:RANDY. Meaning they are entitled to speak for a single church out of 380000 churches in US (church as in building, not as in denomination). If they are a denomination, they may speak in the name of many churches, if they aren't a denomination, they may speak in the name of a single church. So they either conceal their affiliation, or they are utterly unrepresentative (they speak in the name of 50 people, but no more than that, and none of those 50 people is a Bible scholar or a theology professor).

And, above all, Gotquestions is quoted for statements of fact, in the voice of Wikipedia, instead of getting their views attributed to fundamentalist Christianity. This has happened for many years, and has spread to Wikipedias in many languages—it is time to stop it.

Saying that it's against the rules to block it is like saying it's against medical ethics to cure cancer with a genetically engineered virus.

This isn't your business as usual spammer. It is a source of major abuse, for many years. And the abuse will continue for many years, unless the website is blacklisted. If it gets blacklisted, I'll break the champagne. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply][edit]

For the same reasons as Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Cross-wiki spam, see sc/gs. Already blacklisted on w:pt. Wutsje (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wutsje: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --Count Count (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Regex requested to be blacklisted: \bpowells\.com\/book\/2-9781490717722

Link to Lubek's Threelogy, which is commonly spammed. Please add the link to the filter as well. --Leonidlednev (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leonidlednev: I did not find any additions of this link using spamcheck (searching for and then going through the results). Can you provide diff links? Count Count (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Count Count: The AbuseFilter entry is d:Special:AbuseLog/28912814, and there are other links to the book on the blacklist. --Leonidlednev (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leonidlednev: Added Added to Spam blacklist. --Count Count (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Filter updated accordingly. --Count Count (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals[edit]

This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Use a suitable 3rd level heading and display the domain name as per this example {{LinkSummary|}}. Please do not add the protocol part of domain name, eg. http

Remember to provide the specific domain blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as {{removed}} or {{declined}} and archived.

See also recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals.


  • The addition or removal of a domain from the blacklist is not a vote; please do not bold the first words in statements.
  • This page is for the removal of domains from the global blacklist, not for removal of domains from the blacklists of individual wikis. For those requests please take your discussion to the pertinent wiki, where such requests would be made at Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist at that wiki. Search spamlists — remember to enter any relevant language code[edit]

I don't understand why the site is banned: it's the Manning Publications publisher's website! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndryDavies (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined the domain is not blocked via global SBL, but via en:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Please discuss this at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals or request whitelisting of individual links at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist per this discussion [2]. --Johannnes89 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much AndryDavies (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems[edit]

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).


This section is for discussion of Spam blacklist issues among other users.

Meta-Wiki's whitelist pending requests[edit]

Hi, can someone with the right permissions have a look at pending requests at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, please? Yes, that is the whitelist for Meta-Wiki only. I hope this is an ok place to ask given the overlap of roles. Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qgil-WMF if there is a large backlog, admin support can be requested at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. — xaosflux Talk 10:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for pointing me to the right direction. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{edit protected}} is always a good flag, it has a watched category  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]