MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Related pages:
Local whitelist (Talk)
Global blacklist (Talk)
XLinkBot Revertlist (Talk)

Local Blacklist
Local Whitelist
Global Blacklist
XLinkBot RevertList

Local Blacklist
Local Whitelist
Global Blacklist
XLinkBot RevertList


Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

Instructions for editors

There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

  1. Proposed additions
  2. Proposed removals
  3. Troubleshooting and problems
  4. Discussion

Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

Completed requests are archived. All additions and removals are also logged.

Instructions for admins

Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

  1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
  2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
  3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages).
  4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regex — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
  5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
  6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number - 791265612 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
snippet for logging: {{/request|791265612#section_name}}
snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|791265612#section_name}}

Proposed additions Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

Seems among other things to defy WP:CIRCULAR. Added despite there being a perfectly acceptable source already. Carl Fredrik talk 13:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

2nd case (blocked user):

3rd case:

Lots more to be found under https-search, will see if I can get around to removing it all. Carl Fredrik talk 13:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF: Just wait until COIBot finished saving Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/ (its in the queue; linked from above LinkSummary template as 'Reports: ... COIBot'), that will tell you more users and places (I have 28 additions in the db, though the parsing bot has a long backlog and may have missed additions). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Seems to be large enough an issue to warrant inclusion here. Especially since they seem to be doing it from behind a VPN. Carl Fredrik talk 13:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it is cross-wiki, so may switch to meta. Seems to be also on and If the nature there is the same ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@CFCF: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. This has been added to fa and nl wiki, but the editors seem to be independent from the IPs active here (143.. IP on nl, named editors on fa), and the edits there still stand unchallenged for 17 and 10 months. Here it is more obvious spamming, all IPs and what appear to be 2-3 ranges (waiting for full results). It is a good thing if this gets all cleared, CFCF. Thanks for catching this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@CFCF: all cleared now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

Blatent advertising being placed by new account and IP, probably adbots, e.g. [1], [2]. General Ization Talk 12:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, noting that both edits are adding the material unlinked, and hence the blacklist will not stop them (but call it preventive). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

@Mean as custard: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (we've seen these before with another link I notice). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

  • is the social side of the Steam software platform, primarily for user profiles and discussions forums. Anything directly related to games/software sold by the service will be on the website, and so while not the ideal RS for information, certainly is acceptable. But there is never going to be a useful link from the side, and very recently I've seen links to user profiles being spammed (notable at G2A) that could be seen as potential outing of a BLP. Editors should be free to use in their user pages but it will never support a main space page. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SethMacfarlaneGypsy

  • Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:
  • Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

Amazon (ref)link spammer, spams 'amazon.<tld><path>B01EJQOOU2', hence:

  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: \bamazon\..*?B01EJQOOU2\b

--Dirk Beetstra T C 17:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

This is a link shortener. A proposal for blocking appears to have met resistance at, which I don't quite understand since there is a longstanding policy to block link shorteners. But then again, it's hard to see how this can be abused unless we're actually blacklisting for some reason. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I proposed it there for similar reasons as Material on fails our inclusion standards: it is as external document to a site that is purely for selling the item, and as reference at best a primary source for its listing. I wouldnot be surprised to find people spamming own material with the aimto earn money. Leaving the backdoor then open is silly, and more work tomonitor. –Dirk Beetstra T C 15:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

Was being spammed all over. I and others have gone through and removed everything but there is nothing encyclopedic at this website. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:  Declined, it appears that the editor understands, let's wait to see. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hm! Nice catch, ok then. Thanks for the legwork and reply. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Website advocating a FRINGE point of view that has no place in WP; was being spammed into all jewish history related articles. Removed all but this should be out of here. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: An insource:"" search brings up two articles using this domain, Sculpture and Rahab. —PaleoNeonate - 01:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I didn't see any additions after the last warning - plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList - if it continues we will see. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed removals

  • Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

Where is the argument for blacklisting? The only reason tentatively given for blacklisting is the site *might* have been spammed to drive traffic. See recent discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/ Especially the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics part of the site should be unbanned as it contains original copyrighted material by a reasonably wide range of notable economists.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This needs attention. The admin who blocked this site has desysopped himself and is on a Wiki break. He has not responded to requests to deal with this. JzG admitted that part of the ban had to do with the Libertarian affiliation of the source. This is a serious breach of Wikipedia's neutrality position. My personal views are basically the opposite of those represented by Econlib, but sources shouldn't be banned based on the leanings of the site that hosts them. I've found the CEE to be a reliable source with articles by well-known economists of all stripes. JzG has not provided much evidence that this ban is needed to prevent SEO. His edits stripped all references to sites on econlib regardless of whether they were placed there by editors engaged in alleged SEO.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
And I pleaded to remove the blacklisting. Econlib is provided by a highly regarded think tank Liberty Fund (rated 75 (of 150) in the UPenn listing of Best Independent Think Tanks world-wide) and it posts original material from noted economists, including Nobel Prize Laureates. – S. Rich (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Then they shouldn't have needed to spam, should they? --Calton | Talk 00:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect. And your loaded question does not WP:AGF. The links to econlib provide useful and relevant information to the readers. WP:Spam is the content guideline, and it does not mention blacklisting as a remedy. The behavior guideline WP:Spam requires less drastic measures. Indeed, compelling evidence is required before adding links to the blacklist. None of the less drastic steps were taken by the former sysop (who stated he was part of the rouge admin cabal) before blacklisting econlib. The alleged spammers were not blocked, let alone warned. The blacklisting was the just one of a series of irresponsible steps driven by POV. – S. Rich (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Irrespective of the alleged or actual motives behind the blacklisting, is a link to this website needed? The previous discussion implies that the links to this website were redundant to others that don't raise any spam issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was the main issue, that there was nothing sourced to the spamming website that could not be sourced elsewhere. Many of the econlib links are to public domain books which can easily found elsewhere, i.e. WikiSource. If there are genuine links in there somewhere, they could always be whitelisted, but I don't see much. Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Econlib has unique, original material, not just books. For example, here is an essay from Noble Prize Laureate George J. Stigler
[ Monopoly]. This piece, one of many, is not available anywhere else. Also, it is wrong to conflate the actions by a limited number of editors (the evil spammers) to the econlib website itself. E.g., the website cannot spam itself. Whitelisting is not a solution. Why? Look at the fact that this discussion has gone on and on over two different threads without result – which admins will be available to "bless" a whitelist request? Also, putting up the barrier of "Ask for a whitelisting for such-and-such link." is contrary to the notion that WP is a resource that anyone can edit. But, rather than simply complaining about the "blacklisting" here, I will resolve the issue with links to freely available books. A wiki-search for "econlib" comes up with 51 entries. I'm now going through them to remove those links to books. – S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I've gone through the list and removed those links which simply went to book titles. I believe each of the 19 remaining articles has a full citation to original articles. Most of them are to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics and they provide (usually biographical) reference material to the particular article subjects. So the beef about econlib being used to "spam" links to books that are available via Google and Amazon and WikiSource is resolved. But 2–3 of the 19 articles have links which are blocked by the black list. These are NOT links to works which are available elsewhere. And the example link to Stigler remains blocked. I think I've done my share, it is time to fix this. – S. Rich (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a listing of the notable economists who contributed to the first edition (1993) of the CEE (see: Because of the "blacklist" it is impossible to link the particular articles which they wrote for either the first or second editions.

Armen Alchian, Jodie Allen, William Baumol, Gary Becker (Nobel Prize), Jagdish Bhagwati, Alan Blinder, Walter Block, George J. Borjas, Mark Casson, Tyler Cowen, Robert Crandall, Clive Crook, Patricia Danzon, Avinash Dixit, Barry Nalebuff, Barry Eichengreen, Robert Eisner, David D. Friedman, George Gilder, Thomas W. Gilligan, Claudia Goldin, Marshall Goldman, John C. Goodman, Arnold Harberger, Garrett Hardin, Thomas Hazlett, Robert Heilbroner, David R. Henderson, Daniel Henninger, Robert Hessen, Paul Heyne, Jack Hirshleifer, Kevin Hoover, Manuel H. Johnson, Alfred E. Kahn, Wolfgang Kasper, Robert King (economist), Laurence Kotlikoff, Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize), Robert Z. Lawrence, Stanley Lebergott, N. Gregory Mankiw, Allan H. Meltzer, Gregory Millman, Geoffrey H. Moore, Barry Nalebuff, William A. Niskanen, Madsen Pirie, David Prychitko, Alan Reynolds, Kenneth Rogoff, Christina Romer, Paul Romer, Murray Rothbard, Robert J. Samuelson, Thomas J. Sargent, Isabel Sawhill, Thomas Schelling (Nobel Prize), Anna Schwartz, Jane S. Shaw, Herbert Stein, George Stigler (Nobel Prize), Joseph Stiglitz, Lawrence Summers, Lester Thurow, James Tobin (Nobel Prize), Robert Tollison, Gordon Tullock, W. Kip Viscusi, E. Roy Weintraub, Lawrence H. White, Aaron Wildavsky, Richard Zeckhauser.

The first edition is available on-line. Some print editions are still available, but difficult to find. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • As far as I can see, the whole of the CEE is copyrighted. See, for example, [7] (replace the $ with an e). Therefore, to use econlib, any quotations from it would have to comply with our non-free policies. This would not be the case if quoting directly from the book. Therefore, anyone using the content should be using the book as the source, not the website. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Two points. Their copyright is not a justification for blacklisting. (Use of copyrighted material in WP is of concern whether the material is in print on or online.) But more importantly, econlib says "You may quote selections from the page or print a personal copy, in accordance with Fair Use under U.S. copyright laws." (See: Because their output is online, the term "page" refers to their webpages. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I just said. Anything from the CEE should be quoted as (cite book) with the original book page. If you quote econlib, you are increasing the amount of non-free material; you should be minimising this, per WP:5P. This is not a difficult concept, all we need is an editor with a copy of the book. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I fail to understand the point, or how it might justify the blacklisting. Copyrights protect material that is on-line and in-print. Indeed, we use material from purely web-based sources all of the time. The key term is "Fair use", and Econlib has granted permission to "quote selections...." If there were problems with using Econlib material the place to solve them is WP:CP in accordance with WP:CV. – S. Rich (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's anything to do with the original reason for the blacklisting, but it is a good reason not to use econlib for this particular publication. We are supposed to minimise non-free content whether it's "fair use" or not. If we are pointing people towards a non-free source (econlib) rather than the original source then we're not doing that. Free content should be hosted at Wikisource; this isn't free content, so we shouldn't be advertising a website that is using copyrighted content for free. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
By your logic virtually everything WP uses as a source would be eliminated. The NYT, WP, MSNBC, FOX, etc copyright everything they put out. That does not mean we can't use portions of the material. Nor would we blacklist these sources. WP:NFCCP has 10 criteria by which we make editing judgments about what to add. I think, and would ensure, that all 10 criteria would be met by responsible editing in accordance with NFCCP when applying fair use the the CEE sources. Besides, NFCCP is not a factor to consider when blacklisting. NFCCP has an important Rationale: we can use non-free content "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." We are not "advertising" CEE. And consider what happens when we use Special Booksources with ISBNs. We get links to Google, Amazon, and a whole lot more. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
No, you're missing the point. Yes, news services copyright what they put out, but they're primary sources. We quote directly from them. Here, the copyrighted primary source is being hosted by another website on a "fair-use" basis - so not only is it non-free, but we're directly advertising econlib, which I suspect was the whole point in the first place, and why it ended up on the spam blacklist. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
News services are not WP:PRIMARY sources, they are secondary. E.g., the news reporters writing Post or Times articles are describing the events and are not directly involved with the events. (The CEE, as an encyclopedia, is more of a tertiary source.) Even so, WP does allow usage from primary sources "with care". Again, there is no WP policy or guideline that even suggests using the blacklist as a means of controlling copyright violations. This CEE article (1st edition) by Paul Krugman is an acceptable secondary source about the topic of Exchange rates, but the blacklist prevents us from using it. And please note that this WP article has primary (, secondary (, and tertiary ( sources. We are not "advertising" these sources by citing them. – S. Rich (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I now have a printed copy of the CEE (ISBN 978-0-86597-666-5 paperback). So now, by your arguments (above), I can add material from the CEE, providing short quotes from the articles I find, as long as I cite the CEE as the source. But, why can't I also provide links to the same on-line CEE articles? IOW, what is the difference between citing a particular page in the printed book and citing the same pages/material from the on-line version? After all, citing on-line source makes the material accessible to the readers. To provide another (unrelated) WP example I hope you will look at the refs for False equivalence. We have a book, newspaper, magazine, and website. Each is under copyright. (And each link "steers" or "advertises" the source being cited.) But WP copyright/citation policy allows us to cite these different sources under the Fair Use doctrine. All I am asking is that WP contributors be free to cite econlib in the same manner -- without having to beg for white-list permission. Again, please remove econlib from the blacklist. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Can we please have CEE unblacklisted already? By the admission of the person who first globally blacklisted the site, the problem was not with spamming CEE articles. And per Srich, we can cite CEE articles from the book as a printed source. By what reasoning is it forbidden to provide a helpful link to the same article made available online by the publisher, so that the source can be checked by people who do not own a print copy? And please don't use the "It is forbidden until it can be proven that we need it" argument. This is not Soviet Russia. The burden of proof should be on the people who wish to blacklist a source. Can someone who has access please whitelist "*" so that the encyclopeida articles can be linked to? Thank you. --LK (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference Network for Pluralist Economics, a heterdox organisation, has cited Econlib. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: Reputable UK healthcare organisation, whose website includes biographies of notable physicians, and decriptions of hospitals, many of which are historic buildings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a problem. The official link in the BMI Healthcare infobox works fine. – S. Rich (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Srich32977: - for example - is blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. And I agree that bmi should be unblocked. – S. Rich (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing:  Declined, Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Declined on what grounds? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: same answer as below and here. In this case a massive sockfarm of abuse and hardly any use shown beyond own subject page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
When was this alleged abuse? And what's the appeal process if I disagree with your decision? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no "answer below" on the page where I'm reading this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Look, if you immediately start with 'alleged', then I become unhelpful - I have better things to do, clear out years of spamming for example or working away spam backlogs. And you know the ways of appealing very well.
My apologies, the thread below is unrelated though follows the same trend. I should not have referred to that discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Noted your stated intention to "become unhelpful"; but I asked "what's the appeal process if I disagree with your decision?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: FYI, Andy, I don't think there is an appeal process. The closest guidance I found is WP:BLACKLIST, which strongly suggests that blacklisting is the last resort. Moreover, the WP:WPSPAM Project has blacklisting as number 5 (of 6) in the steps to be taken to fight spam. In the BMI case I don't know if the first 4 steps were ever taken. – S. Rich (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Of course there is a dispute resolution, first this is now the second time you ask and the second time I decline in less than two months. And we are still discussing first (well) and you could come with arguments that change my mind, or another admin can come in and change the course of the discussion. Otherwise, you could start an RfC, you could start a thread on WP:AN or WP:AN/I, heck, you could go to ArbCom. But if you want to delist a link that was spammed just less than two years ago in a 380 sock sockfarm with a bad form of paid editing (literally companies paying editors to create articles for them, the articles being created, the editors getting paid, the articles being deleted and the companies contacting OTRS, etc. etc.) then I really hope that the community has enough common sense to understand that this form of 'alleged' spamming is indeed something that we don't want here, and that whitelisting is a better way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
"this is now the second time you ask" Where was the first, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/06#BMI, May 15, 2017. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
That was a request for a single URL,, to be whitelisted. AS indeed it was. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You there also mentioned that it was a reputable organisation, and that it should probably not be blacklisted. I there also mentioned that it was SEO spammed by a sockfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

I thought I had requested this already but can't find it. I just requested it on the global one but was told to try local. Anyway this is the website for the Rambler News Service, which is a news agency. Rambler is sort of the Yahoo of Russia. Rambler creates its own news and runs articles from other agencies. It's quite useful as a Russian-language source. I'm not sure why it's blocked unless the entire .online domain is blocked. I first came up with the error for the article on Sergei Gorkov when using as a source for his being named a member of some board of directors. I haven't been able to find an alternative source. Thanks for your time. МандичкаYO 😜 06:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: now this is funny. I see you are being blocked when adding .. but I don't see why. It has nothing to do with this domain, the only thing I can see then is a funny combination of characters which is blanket-blacklisted.
OK, it is caught by .*\.(ga|cf|ml|gq|online|site)/.*?\d{4,5}[-/]\d{1,2}[-/]\d{1,2}.*, blacklisted due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Isla_Riordan - a curious form of collateral damage on a complex regex. Defer to Whitelist (I will take care of it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
How bizarre! Thank you so much! МандичкаYO 😜 07:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Was never going to get that one without knowing the exact url used, and the wiki concerned. Good get Beetstra. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


  • Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:
  • Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

I would like to see themoviedb and tmdb removed from the blacklist. I see no reason why the site is blocked, and like it better then iMDB. Modanung (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Moved into correct section. –Dirk Beetstra T C 20:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Modanung:  Declined. See lengthy discussion here. Site is stilldeemed not notable (article is deleted). No need for links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: There's no need for black-listing either. Modanung (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Modanung: Oh, there is.. open invitations to have the site added regardless of need by 'fans' of tmbd are clearly a need. And as long as people can not show why we would need to link to the site anyway, it can stay blacklisted. If you need specific links in specific places: Defer to Whitelist. Until then, still  Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: TMDB is a more Wikipedia-like alternative to Amazon-owned IMDB. You're basically showing family the door while inviting tycoons! Modanung (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Modanung: No, we are not showing family the door, we've shown spammers the door. And we have not invited tycoons, we're not inviting anyone. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

Squidoo matching \bhubpages\.com\b ?

Any edit (even a null edit) to Squidoo is failing the \bhubpages\.com\b check, even though the edit isn't adding a matching link, and the article doesn't already contain a matching link. The blacklist entry is (much) older than the last edits to the Squidoo article, so I don't see what's changed. Can anyone see what's wrong? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Doubleplus weirdly, pasting the text of Squidoo verbatim into by user sandbox doesn't trigger the blacklist. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Finlay McWalter: this is the offending edit. The official website of Squidoo has been set to, which is automatically transcluded from WikiData. Every subsequent edit to Squidoo now records the difference in the logs as the editor adding the external link in that revid. I have been expecting this error to happen at some point, the transclusion of WikiData data is a problematic feature that 'overrules' local policies etc. We'll have to not use the WikiData property, but a local property that we can whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I have put in a nowiki-d link, an /about or something similar will need to be whitelisted for this purpose. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that explains it, and fixes my issue. There's probably a few other sites where something similar has happened (where some merger or acquisition or rebranding has necessitated a change in the wikidata). But finding them, which I imagine would necessitate a script checking each wikidata change against the filter rulesets, isn't a totally trivial task. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This must happen every now and then, though I expect it to be rare (it is a scenario that spammers could abuse, though - create a template that transcludes a not-yet-existing link from WikiData, add the template to many pages, then create the WikiData content. Strange thing is that the link is already there in the current version, it just has not been parsed as being there yet. It is somewhat funny that the software sees this as your addition, while that is not the case. And the page is locked just because of an edit happening on WikiData. I am considering whether this is worth a phabricator ticket. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Logging / COIBot Instr

Blacklist logging

Full Instructions for Admins

Quick Reference

For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

  • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
  • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
  • Use within the entry log here.

For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

  • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
  • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
  • Use within the entry log here.

Have added a supplement, a general " how-to of sorts. --Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found.

Addition to the COIBot reports

The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. " (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

  1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
  2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
  3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
  4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user do add a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

For those with access to IRC, there this data is available in real time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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 this function, everything still needs to be saved .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Note for admins who work here. Pls see Week 3 Challenge: As Wikimedia looks toward 2030, how can we counteract the increasing levels of misinformation?. Perhaps comment on the role (or not) of this blacklist in that? Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA