MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 - 898160202 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
snippet for logging: {{/request|898160202#section_name}}
snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|898160202#section_name}}

Proposed additions[edit][edit]

Systematic dead link spam for a marketing site by multiple throwaway accounts. GermanJoe (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. There is no valid use case for this domain, and it is indeed being spammed. — Newslinger talk 01:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[edit]


Spam from rotating IPs going back to 2008 or so, through to today. Touched lots of articles, see IP contribs. - MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[edit]

I've been weeding out uses of this site for months now, and we're down to around 190 instances from what was well over 2000 in January 2018. The site was one of many discussed here, all of which will eventually come in for the same treatment. However, it is still being added and so I find myself going round in circles. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: do you think that we could just list the whole set here and blacklist based on that discussion? (we do blacklist if there is a clear consensus that they should not be used at all, and only make exception at very rare cases which then can easily be handled at the whitelist - I am not sure if this RSN discussion is strong enough for that). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I would be happy to see all but mapsofindia blacklisted. As the discussion noted, mapsofindia does have some genuine use but the rest are scrapers. Bear in mind that the participants in that discussion, other than Reyk, are all very frequent contributors to India-related articles - they know their stuff. Sorry, struck that - there was a discussion somewhere that involved more members of the India wikiproject, but it isn't the one I link above. Same outcome, though. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: so that makes the above list? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems to, yes, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I remove links to 159 every now and then and it does seem to me that I'm seeing instances I removed being put back in. Blacklist sounds like a god plan. Reyk YO! 11:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Blacklisting makes sense for I don't have an opinion about the other websites, except for it's not the best source, but it's very far from being the kind of thing we should blacklist (it's also currently being discussed at the RSN). – Uanfala (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Because you raised it there. It will have the same outcome - there are official sources for the information, so no need to use a spammy one. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If people want it blacklisted, fine. But in my book, the fact that a website has ads doesn't automatically make it "spammy". – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Repeated spam for a real estate site by throwaway accounts and IPs. Multiple warnings and a temporary protection of their main target Delhi Development Authority have been ignored (continued after protection ended). GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Bot-like spamming over the past few weeks nine months, both in article namespace, and now, talk page archives. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --— JJMC89(T·C) 20:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

IMDB[edit] 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 • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: This has probably been discussed before but since folks continue to try to pass it off as a WP:RS on a regular basis, including for things like WP:DOB, I think it's time to put a stop to it.

The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is therefore considered unreliable by the majority of editors. Some have argued that certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, although there is no broad agreement as to whether this constitutes bona fide fact checking, or what portions of the site, if any, should be considered reliable. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Toddst1, this is opposite to WP:ELPEREN (though I do think that a reliability argument counts way stronger than ‘it contains much info that we do not have’, especially when that info is unreliable). As this request is not based on mitigation of spam, we would need an RfC showing that the issues with the site warrant blacklisting. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I can probably get behind this. There are a couple of circumstances (see WP:CITEIMDB) where IMDB is considered a reliable source (although generally the MPAA ratings aren't mentioned in articles) but generally that's done by established editors. The majority of times I have to revert the use of IMDB is for IP or new editors (and they seem to respond quite well to a quick note explaining why IMDB shouldn't be used for cast, plot, release or darn near anything but writing credits). Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree; I don't think it would be practical to add it to the blacklist given the number of existing links. XLinkBot would be a better approach. However, given how many existing links there are, and the fact the way have a pretty commonly used template ({{template:imdb}}) for imdb, I suggest taking it to a broader forum for discussion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I've started an RfC at WP:RSN § RfC: IMDb to gauge consensus for adding IMDb to the RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 18:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[edit] 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 • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: Slow spam. Every few months an IP adds another link. Too infrequent for a block of the two IPs used so far to be effective, too many different pages for semiprotection to be effective. The only question is whether this gets spammed often enough to justify blacklisting. (Something at the top of this page explaining how often a site needs to be spammed to justify filtering would be a huge help. I'm just saying.) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Added by blocked Murca-editor17 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log); fake bad-humor copy of 2020 campaign website. Nate (chatter) 06:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: user is blocked, if that is the only user, then we generally only block. If others pop up, please let us know. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[edit]

I don't know if this is the right place to but this is unreliable site used excessively for biographies. There is already a template indicating it is NOT a reliable site and should not be used but people ignore it. It is self-published and either taken from reliable sources (meaning they are available for use) or personal email correspondence by the creator. For example: [] The site itself says it is unreliable. It is the bane of many good Wikipedia editors and I'm at my wits' end trying to replace it with sources. It needs to be formally blacklisted so it cannot be continually cited as a source. МандичкаYO 😜 11:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: additions solely based on unreliability generally need a consensus at WP:RS/N. Are there any earlier discussions regarding this site on WP:RS/N that agree with this general assessment (if so, I will pull the trigger, if not, we need such a discussion/RfC). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I know admin @PBS: discussed this on the Reliable sources Noticeboard five years ago when it was cited on 7,000 pages. That number is now over 10,000. I will create a new discussion solely about this site. МандичкаYO 😜 12:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
(just for ease of searching): Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_175#Judgepedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thanks for the heads up User:Beetstra. User:Wikimandia, over the years I have asked similar questions about this and other sites. I can look the discussions up but it will take a lot of time, and I will only do it if pressed. The short answerer is I do not approve of the proposal. Here is a more detailed explanation.

This is message I posted to user:Vetiverman's talk page diff

Thank you for creating the article John Clinton, 6th Lord Clinton on 14 November 2016‎. However it is clear that the contents came from Darryl Lund's website's website is not reliable (it is self published by a none expert), but you can use Lund's website as a source providing the information he provides is backed up by a Wikipedia reliable source (some of it isn't it comes from email correspondence and the like).

Unless you have access to his reliable sources, you can not cite his sources directly, instead you must cite his source and then the reliable source. This is explained in more detail in the section in the citations guideline linked to by WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.

I have copied edited the article and added in the appropriate style of citations see this edit. If you have added information based on any of Lundy's pages to any other article and have not stated that the information came from his website, please add the appropriate additional citations as specified in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.

I ran AWB search a number of years ago (August 2012) and tagged them all at that time (see for example this edit). A search on

Search: "Lundy, Darry"

Returns lots of pages where the use of Lundy is in my opinion useful as a method of using reliable sources, take Francis Smith, 2nd Viscount Carrington as an example. Without Lundy the page would probably not exist, but can there be a doubt that reliable sources can back up the information? In the long run some editor will have access to Lundy's sources andwill be able to drop the need for Lundy as a WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bath water.

However Lundy also includes information that is not based on a Wikipedia reliable sources, and I for one am happy to see such text base on unreliable sources removed, see for example the article "Robert Catesby", where Lundy is cited, but Lundy cites "Peter McCallum, 're: Baber Family," e-mail message to Darryl Roger LUNDY (101053), 29 October 2017'", text based on such citations using personal correspondence via email to Lundy ought to be removed along with the citation.

There have been similar debates in the past that I have been involved with about two other web sites.

  1. Rayment and {{Rayment}}
  2. RS Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley website: Medieval Lands introduction v2.0. Updated 30 November 2010 {{Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley}} The project "involves extracting and analysing detailed information from primary sources, including contemporary chronicles, cartularies, necrologies and testaments."

The general opinion in the case of Rayment site was it is accurate, but it does not cite its sources, so it should be kept. I placed an unreliable template into {{Rayment}} and its sister templates, but after some years someone objected to that, so some of the Rayment templates contain a unreliable source warning and others do not.

The general opinion on Charles Cawley's website was that it is unreliable when there is not a clear citation, but it is far from clear that this is acceptable because the citation is usually to a primary source (and primary sources that not published, are not acceptable (WP:PSTS)). Also in may cases and because Cawley site draws inferences from the primary sources, that are acceptable in a reliable secondary source but are a syn (sic) for Wikipedia editors to do. So I created {{Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley}} which includes the templates "[self-published source][better source needed]"

However having mentioned the "not-so-good" and "the bad", here are some of "the ugly":

  • Website: [ Genealogy.EU by Miroslav Marek] Last updated: 17th March 2008 Genealogy.EU 220 pages
  • Website ([ Latin occupation of Greek lands]) 2 pages
  • Website (9 pages
  • {{Genealogics name}} (deleted July 2016) and 28 pages
  • {{Familypedia}} Wack a rat, deleted October 2013
  • Website: www.peerages [ David Beamish's Peerage Page] 1 page
  • Website 90 pages

Not all of these may be used as citations (they may be in external links). Which brings me to my last point. Yes they need to be tested for use as cited reliable sources (and deleted if they do not meet the requirements), but do we really want to add them to a black list which was never intended to ban this type of web site--unreliable but not harmful--and that might legitimately appear in external links?

-- PBS (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@PBS: that is exactly why I ask for significant community consensus before blacklisting a domain on the basis of unreliability - it is not something to be taken lightly. I know it is a grey area, but you have to ask the question whether Wikipedians should be .. wasting their time reverting and removing ALL additions, or whether we should just plainly stop the additions to occur in the first place. Also, I believe that the name 'Spam-blacklist' is a misnomer, and that historically the blacklist has been used for non-spam(med) material (there is material on the blacklists that has not been spammed, but where every recorded addition is plainly abuse, unhelpful, and HAS to be reverted - one of those,, had about 15 additions over the last 2 days). And you are right, sites that can, within reason, be used as an external link, but almost never as a reference should not be on this list either.
We are not out here to just blacklist anything that we think that is 'not-so-good', 'the bad', or 'the ugly' unless it is a) actively spammed or b) it can be shown that all additions are abuse, or c) there is a near-unilateral consensus that it is so majorly unreliable and useless that the community decides that it is better to stop all additions.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[edit]

+ others...

  • A mixture of spamming the external links sections of articles/refspam. I removed about 20 instances today via an insource: search, so perhaps not massive, but maybe one to watch. -- Begoon 12:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noting that half a dozen of these were reinserted after I removed them, by different IPs. -- Begoon 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[edit] 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 • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

This is a user-generated news site to make fake news articles. It was recently used to create this gross BLP violation. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: It has been used by other users (one use replaced by same user) for, what seems, not such material. RockNWrite82 and Kitkalix, can you please confirm/rebute the remarks? (user generated news sites do not have to be blacklisted just on having that nature, nor on having one case of gross abuse, but if we agree that that is the general nature then we should probably consider to be more careful with it's use). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Beetstra. I wasn't sure what the correct venue was to report this, so I came here. Let me know if there's a better way to deal with this. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[edit] is the former name and current alternate domain of MyLife, which was recently blacklisted in Special:Diff/895302628. See WP:RSP § MyLife for the noticeboard discussions on MyLife, and [1] [2] [3] [4] for how this site is being used on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 18:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[edit]

This domain is operated by Advameg, which previously had all of its domains blacklisted for publishing scraped and improperly licensed content: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2019 § Advameg sites (,, etc.) — Newslinger talk 06:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[edit]

spammed by

Continued spamming for a new jobs site. A final warning and a block (Syedalam7680) have been ignored. 1-2 other sites have also been sporadically spammed by this user, but this one seems to be the main issue for now. GermanJoe (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed removals[edit][edit]

I hope this is the right place to request a removal from the blacklist. It appears someone went crazy on the ASMR wikipedia entry page, and began erasing everybodies links and other bits of information. My website is genuine. It is highly relevant to the ASMR wikipedia page as well as a few others. It contains more research intensive information than most other websites. Spam is content that is created without thought, without care, and without attention. is made with care, provides a great deal of attention to the subject matter, and there is significant thought put into the subject matter. The ASMR section that is the web, just so happens to be controversial, so I understand the attention directed towards my website. Please remove it from the spam list. Thank you for your reconsideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Declined Please refer to the notice at the top of this section; we don't consider requests from site owners. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie. I thought the wikipedia was mine until I read your thoughts on site ownership. I guess I'll stop paying for it. Sincerely.

BTW. You guys banned the Daily Mail? That is elitism. I guess I will IQ test myself and others before I refer them to your academy of higher vets.

Who owns the Daily Mail? Who has the conflict of interest? The readers?

Please reconsider the blacklist removal and reference your own wikipedia page on what is technically spam.

unsolicited — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and btw. Shame on you guys for this ban -> http://american cocker — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Your website is a self-published source, which is not considered reliable enough to be used as a Wikipedia citation. It has been blacklisted from Wikipedia because it was used for external link spamming.

The Daily Mail is deprecated (not blacklisted) after two highly-attended requests for comment in 2017 and in 2019 that concluded the source is highly questionable. When an editor inserts a link to the Daily Mail into an article, they see a warning message informing them that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and they can choose to either heed the warning or override it by submitting the edit again. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but cherry picking avoids the other issue, such as the definition of spam itself, and there is no spam issue whatsoever.

I think the Daily mail provides it's sources whenever possible. Especially on it's copyrighted image materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not blacklisted. The domain is not on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 11:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems[edit]

Logging / COIBot Instructions[edit]

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.
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 who adds 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. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

poking COIBot

When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for priviliged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.