Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 13 hours ago by Johnjbarton in topic supplychaindigital.com
Shortcuts

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. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

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.

Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

  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 regular expressions — 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 – 1379205660 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

Proposed additions

[edit]

visitingniagarafalls.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Persistent spamming by multiple temp accounts. Annh07 (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done, added to blocked domains list. MCE89 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

1-x-betting.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Phishing website disguised as official website, spammed for over a month. Diffs 7/10 8/27 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 17:30, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Defer to Global blacklist spammed on 6 wikis. (Non-administrator comment) lp0 on fire () 11:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

seoulbloom.in

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

See for example, Special:Contributions/~2026-46753-92. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 10:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

(Non-administrator comment) @irisChronomia unless I'm missing something that was the only account adding this link, in which case the link isn't eligible for blacklisting. Same for #sggurukul.com below. lp0 on fire () 12:05, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@IrisChronomia: no Declined, one user/IP, already blocked. We will revisit if this restarts after this warning, or if it restarts from other accounts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

germaniainternational.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Commercial website selling Nazi memorabilia, with a pro-Nazi POV. Note all links to this website have now been removed – see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#germaniainternational.com, , , , – but some of these references have survived unnoticed for over a decade, see . It would be good to block the site just in case anyone tries to reinsert them without people noticing. The fact they've gone unnoticed for so long suggests people might miss them.Scamster (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

jasiway.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 21 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

jasiway.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Wikipedia • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Year-long spam by multiple single-edit TAs and legacy IPs. Selected examples:

There is also a single Spanish Wikipedia edit, but that was a year ago, and the more recent spam from 2026 is only on English Wikipedia, so that's why I'm reporting here rather on the global blacklist. Thanks, OutsideNormality (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@OutsideNormality Added to WP:BED. My usual standard for requesting global blacklisting is appearances on three wikis so local should be fine for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

e-pao.net

[edit]
Latest comment: 20 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

e-pao.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Wikipedia • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

De facto user-generated blog with a strong pro-Meitei bias, including racist propaganda against Kuki people. Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#e-pao.net in April 2023 and an ongoing ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Articles_Started_by_User:Haoreima where a user created hundreds of low-quality articles using this source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Actually, this will need to go global due to frequent usage on foreign Wikipedias, especially in the Assamese, Bengali, and Meitei languages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:34, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not familiar enough with spam blaclist practices to provide any useful feedback, but if you're interested @LaundryPizza03, this site has come up a lot in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurumayum Arvind/Archive (promotional socks going back 10 years). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LaundryPizza03 this one is in use in a lot of places locally and globally. Those will need to be removed for global blacklisting and ideally even before we block it locally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:27, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Rquested at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#e-pao.net. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

okunusa.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 21 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

okunusa.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Wikipedia • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Blatant spam link (selling door handles) that started being spammed about a month ago and has become a daily occurrence over the past few days. Apparition11 Talk/Contribs 10:49, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Apparition11 that was an interesting little rabbit hole! I've blocked all the TAs and the underlying IPs because they appear to be proxies. I also blocked EaUgdA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · SUL · Google · StopForumSpam) and their underlying IP because they're also using proxies and are confirmed to Robert Onteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · SUL · Google · StopForumSpam) (also blocked! I filled my block for quota today!); they appear to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yubille. And finally, domain Added to WP:BED. Thanks for the report. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nice! Appreciate it! Glad you caught all that, I didn't recognize any connections and thought this was a simple one :) Thanks for your efforts! Apparition11 Talk/Contribs 17:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

scoreaxis.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Persistent spamming by multiple temp accounts. Annh07 (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Defer to Global blacklist. Annh07 (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

ddonutsusa-menu.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

ddonutsusa-menu.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Wikipedia • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Added by 2 single-edit users and 1 TA, even after a 4im warning:

There is also some cross-wiki spam, not sure if I should report on Meta or not. OutsideNormality (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@OutsideNormality: Defer to Global blacklist. I'll take it to Meta as it meets my threshold of three wikis and different accounts. I've blocked the accounts involved locally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I wasn't sure as the wikidata spam was on January of this year (so >6 mo. ago). OutsideNormality (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
In my view, if a domain was spammed over the course of a year that's a stronger argument for blacklisting than if all the spam happened on a single day two weeks ago. The first case suggests it might reappear six months from now, whereas the second is more likely to be a disposable domain. lp0 on fire () 09:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

famral.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 16 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Typical Indian college refspam site. Relatively low level of activity, but added in the past week and Connectwithman raises a few flags for me for spamming from their edits. Warned them in July, they continued to add links to the site. Ravensfire (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

theguardian.com.ng

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Impersonating as The Guardian, used by a few SPAs in creation of a few UPE articles. I don't think there'll ever be any legitimate reason to link this website in the future, so we'd rather just block it.

Regards. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 11:07, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for appearing here. Your tip is highly appreciated.
On the blocklist removal part: no. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 10:55, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just so you're aware, the spam farm has updated the URL's mainpage to change the name to "The Guardian Naija" from its previous "The Guardian".
Prev - (web.archive.org/web/20260923110351/theguardian.com.ng)
Curr - (web.archive.org/web/20260928100000/theguardian.com.ng)
Funny how they think Archive.org is not a thing. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 10:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

hostingrated.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Persistent spamming by multiple accounts. Annh07 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Annh07: Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

documenta11y.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

documenta11y.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Wikipedia • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com


This domain has been spammed quite persistently in the last year or so; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Briannacollins and its archive. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Graham87 Added to WP:BED. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Arkin Mathews

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's been a recurring problem over the past month with the repeated recreation of nonsense drafts and/or sandboxes about a Philippine singer and "brother actress" (whatever the hell that means) named Arkin Mathews. The subject was supposedly born in 2021, making him just five years old, yet somehow got married in 2023 at the age of two and has somehow built a successful career despite just barely being old enough to attend elementary school, so it's obvious nonsense.

The creators of these drafts are getting blocked for sockpuppetry, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/M-Metro37, whenever we come across them, but the creator inevitably comes back within a few days to try again under yet another puppet avatar. The drafts are also invariably filed in mainspace categories, violating WP:DRAFTNOCAT or WP:USERNOCAT, but after those are removed the page invariably ends up back in the same categories again if the page doesn't get EC-protected to lock the creator out — but if the page does get EC-protected, then another copy shows up at another title soon afterward to repeat the nocat cycle. And even blocks just slow down the barrage rather than ending it, as after any full block it's at most two or three days before they register a whole new batch of sleeper accounts to start the whole thing from the top again (and/or just recreate it under one or more TA accounts instead.)

Accordingly, I wanted to ask if we could potentially kibosh this by blacklisting one or more of the web URLs that are inevitably in the draft text, such as www.matboys.com.ph, matfamily.com.ph, matsingers.com.ph or mat-boys.fandom.com, so that the socks can no longer save pages containing those URLs. None of these are real URLs, and all lead to some form or other of 404 error. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

[edit]

getresponse.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 28 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

getresponse.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Wikipedia • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I'd like to request removal of "getresponse.com" from the local blacklist.

Full disclosure: I've edited Wikipedia on a compensated basis in connection with GetResponse S.A., as already disclosed on my user page as well as the article's talkpage, per WP:PAID. I have a track record of similar declared paid-editing work on other Polish technology companies' articles, and I want to say plainly that I have no tolerance for on-wiki spamming -- quite the opposite, which is part of why I looked closely at how this block originated before asking for it to be lifted.

The domain was added to the blacklist in 2020, based on a minimal exchange: "Was spammed by an IP." -> "Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist." That was it. An action taken six minutes later. No diffs, no discussion. The linked bot-report pages that would normally document a link-spam campaign. I found no COIBot/XWiki reports on Meta was ever created. Although I'm not disputing that a report was made in good faith, just noting that, six years on, there is no evidence of a potential abuse. I guess the blacklisting was applied without the level of review this list's own process (and this section's own instructions) would normally call for.

In any case, GetResponse is a long-established, independently documented, Polish registered joint-stock company with international offices, and has independent media coverage (hence the article being edited now). It's not an ephemeral or promotion-only operation. (Btw. I've found no instance before or after May 2020, of anyone spamming Wikipedia on the company's behalf). Part of the story here may be GetResponse's own industry. It is an email-service-provider -- at the time of the 2020 report, the technical note said that "the bare getresponse.com domain was used for outbound mail and click-tracking/redirect links generated on behalf of customers' own email campaigns". Well, domains used for mail delivery or link redirection by ESPs are a known target for automated anti-spam tooling and for third parties (a customer, or an unrelated bad actor) pasting those links elsewhere -- activity that doesn't originate from, or reflect a campaign by, the company owning the domain.

This is no longer the case today -- marketing mail and tracking links now run on separate dedicated sending domains rather than the corporate domain. I raise this only as a plausible explanation for what an IP-based report might have picked up in 2020, not as a claim I can fully reconstruct after the fact.

At the moment, the article on GetResponse cannot cite the company's official website or any self-descriptive facts. Therefore, I'd ask that getresponse.com be removed from the local spam blacklist. If the community isn't comfortable with a full removal, I'd ask instead that the specific page(s) above be whitelisted so the article can at least cite basic facts.

Happy to answer any questions. — Kochas 00:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Kochas: This was not based on some automated report, it was found manually and reported by one user, then suggested for blacklisting by another and blacklisted by a third. Seen the ".. develops its namesake email marketing and marketing automation platform .." I do not foresee any regular use outside of the subject page. no Declined, Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain, if that becomes serious we can discuss delisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

vistagamble.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion

vistagamble.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Wikipedia • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I am the owner and operator of vistagamble.com, disclosed per WP:COI (see my user page). I am aware that requests from site owners are normally declined, and I will understand if this one is. I am filing it anyway because the listing resulted from third-party abuse that we did not commit or authorize, not from our own conduct.

The domain was added to Special:BlockedExternalDomains on 2025-06-23 by HJ Mitchell. I have reviewed the spamcheck report: the link additions in September–October 2024 and June 2025 were not made or authorized by me or anyone associated with the site. We do not engage in link building on Wikipedia and have never instructed anyone to place links here. We have specific reason to believe the edits were a deliberate third-party attempt to damage the domain's standing, and I am happy to share details privately with any administrator if useful.

To address the relevant question directly: I expect the abuse has stopped because there have been no addition attempts on English Wikipedia since the block, and none on any project for roughly a year. I am not arguing that the site is useful as a source — it is a commercial site and I am not seeking to add links anywhere on Wikipedia. My only aim is removal of a listing caused by abuse that did not come from us and has ceased. If the preference is to keep the entry for a longer observation period, I would appreciate guidance on when a renewed request would be reasonable. Thank you for your time. Philipegjor (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

We have specific reason to believe the edits were a deliberate third-party attempt to damage the domain's standing, and I am happy to share details privately with any administrator if useful. @Philipegjor: (Non-administrator comment) please email this information to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org. lp0 on fire () 18:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also note that this list is to protect WIkipedia, not to 'punish' your company. It does not matter whether the spamming/abuse happens due to SEO, a overactive employee, a competitor or bored teenagers, we blacklist to stop the additions. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

hostingrated.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments4 people in discussion

rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm requesting that www.rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com be unblocked. The reason the website was blocked was that I personally overused his match reports as sources. Causing an over-saturation of unreliable sources throughout Wikipedia. I have, throughout the years, replaced the unreliable sources with reliable ones. The reason for my request is that the site does contain many reliable primary sources and secondary sources that weren't archived and are now dead. The website is of value to Canadian soccer because of these reliable primary sources and secondary sources. Not to mention, the creator (Robin Glove) is a notable and reliable individual in the soccer circles. One example is that he received a media award in 2012 from one of the leagues he covered.

As I stated above, I have taken measures to remove the excessive use of the website and replace it with secondary and primary ones.

Thank you. Shotgun pete /// User talk:Shotgun pete 15:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

supplychaindigital.com

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 hours ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I am requesting that supplychaindigital.com be unblocked. I found no log that explained why the site was blocked. It looks and acts like an industry newletter site with legitmate if highly specialized news articles. The site, like I guess 90% of the web, is covered with advertisements. The publisher, like most corporate publishers, runs multiple similar sites in related industries. The entry in the block list claims "Promotional vanity press, run by PR/SEO company, spam articles (Bizclik farm) - 2026-08-22" However Bizclik is a legitmate company that has been around a while. The use of articles on this site for verification sources is subject to debate, but in my opinion it should not be dictated by one editor without (as far as I can tell) other input.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs)

You've quoted the log entry. There was no concern with advertisements noted; the fact that it's a company is not the problem. It's that it's a pay-to-play SEO marketing company, and they're pretty clear about the promotional nature of the material. None of this is marked or separated from other content, and it's been used abusively here for promotional articles. Here's a few links that may help: , . You're completely correct, though. If you don't feel this is blatant and clear, then I'm happy to remove from the blacklist and resume normal monitoring of additions until there's a wider consensus formed through a longer discussion in the future. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Source #7 is about placing a brand in their newsletters or email. Source #6 is ambiguous and it is possible that they write stories to promote specific businesses. But this does not mean that specific stories are biased. Their story https://supplychaindigital.com/news/tesla-acid-free-future-lithium-supply-chain is essentially the same story that appears in
I don't think the characterization in the log entry is accurate. These are not "spam" articles, but rather lame, special purpose news articles for a niche industry. I don't consider them useful sources except for narrow claims such as "The process is in production near Corpus Christi, Texas." But I don't think blacklisting is correct here. I do appreciate the effort put in here, I just wish that the list was advisory rather than blocking. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the links above are unambiguous. I also think that any addition of mine to the blocked domains list should driven by consensus, or it should be overtly obvious that it is abusive. In this case, you're a rational long-term contributor that is unpersuaded, so I've removed it from the list. I'll try to put together something more detailed in the future, but it's about fifth in line of formerly good sources that have gone sour.Sam Kuru (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I also agree that listing of domains should be driven by (established) consensus. Here it does appear there was no direct abuse or spam(ming) going on, a prior discussion on RSN would probably have made a better case. I disagree that a wrongly worded (or disagreeably worded) blacklist reason, or legitimacy of a company would be reasons NOT to blacklist, it is about the on-wiki evidence/consensus for the former (not the bureaucracy), and for the latter, we do have very respectable companies blacklisted for blunt spamming or continuous abuse. SEO is a respectable business, even if it is not in agreement with Wikipedia policies.
Note that this site was mentioned in a 2010 WT:WPSPAM discussion (I agree old, but proper spam/SEO does not necessarily stop, it does pay the bills, and 10+-year cases are observed). Spamcheck however does not suggest current spamming occuring. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, maybe some of these cases can be handled by Special:AbuseFilter which seems to be more of a warning than a block? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Johnjbarton AbuseFilter is rather heavy when used with external links, or with regexes (the spam blacklist adds rendering time for all the regexes on there, but each abusefilter adds more, especially with regexes and external links). I have in the past argued to have an overhaul of the blacklist to use a mechanism similar to AbuseFilter but that never got hold.
Still, you have to ask what is the gain. None of the (rather few) link additions over the last 6 months stayed on en.wikipedia, and seeing the nature of the site, probably none should. On the other hand, here the volume of additions is rather small and post-addition cleanup would work (as Kuru has been doing). Dirk Beetstra T C 08:44, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok thanks for the info. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

[edit]

Old stuff

[edit]
Latest comment: 11 days ago23 comments7 people in discussion

A quick script showed that out of ~6,000 entries in this list, around 5,000 of them has not been hit in the past three years. Each row on the old spam blacklist (this page) slows down editing for everyone (except bots and admins). This is adding around 100ms to edit save time. It would be nice to at least drop the unused ones so migrating the rest to Special:BlockedExternalDomains would get easier. Ladsgroupoverleg 17:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

How do the number change for inactive after five and ten years? There are some groups pushing site(s) that probably would start up again at some point after the entry is removed, but perhaps some case-by-case review? Yeah, I know that 5k is a lot to review, and it would be nice to have a way to check for activity on any removed sites for a year+. My general thought is that most of those sites won't be spammed again, and probably a decent number aren't active sites anymore (or are just parking domains now). I think some additional numbers to help find a balanced expiration date and the possibility of a way to monitor (like something running once a week-ish) would be helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree that getting rid of unused lines on this page would be good. I wonder if you could run a query along the lines of (time from last blacklist hit to now) - (time from first addition to last blacklist hit) to get a better sense of the domains that are unlikely to show up again. Presumably if we removed these we would add them to the COIBot monitor list. Running some similar queries for the global blacklist could also be helpful, since that affects every edit on every project. lp0 on fire () 17:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think we could safely drop anything that hasn't had a hit in, say, ten years, without even worrying about it. Maybe even five. I'd be a little bit nervous about anything with more-recent hits than that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@HJ Mitchell around 4,500 of them haven't been hit in the past five years and IMHO, if they are hit again after removal, can simply add them to the new system instead. Ladsgroupoverleg 11:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Lustiger seth has been offering this service on the blacklists, both here and on meta. The lists are rather massive, and I can see the administration/parsing time issues there. Such removals do need some special scrutiny, there is some stuff that is related to office actions, some 'legal' stuff and some things that just never should be linked to and are better to ensure and 'waste' the time than having them linked. That said, most is uncontroversial to remove. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The ones related to office actions, piracy sites, and the like would usually be blacklisted on meta, wouldn't they? Definitely a concern when removing stale entries from the global blacklist, but I wouldn't think it would would cause problems for the enwiki list. lp0 on fire () 09:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is a bigger concern on meta, indeed, but there are similar cases (I wonder if there are links blacklisted by ArbCom). Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:Ladsgroup/spamblacklist is the list of stuff that haven't been hit in the past five years. Ladsgroupoverleg 11:17, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ladsgroup: this list seems to include things that were only added to the blacklist in the last 5 years. Did you forget to exclude those, or does that indicate some broader issue with your method? lp0 on fire () 13:09, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Lp0 on fire The reason is rather simple. The additions never got hit. For example "hss7architects" was added on August 26 (btw, @Beetstra please use Special:CommunityConfiguration/BlockedDomain instead) and if you look at the logs of spam blacklist even to August 20th, there is no mention of that domain. On top of these, it can be other issues such as broken regex, etc. Ladsgroupoverleg 13:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would strongly oppose removing regexes that were added recently just because they haven't been hit yet, and suggest you should re-run your query with these excluded (i.e. no hits in the last n years and was added more than n years ago). lp0 on fire () 14:11, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Based on Special:PermaLink/1041898641 anything after line ~5500 is more recent than five years. I removed those and you're still left with 4,000 entries to get rid of Ladsgroupoverleg 16:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! lp0 on fire () 17:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Amir, I'd happily remove anything that was added >5 years ago and has had no recent hits. I'll leave it a few days for any more opinions but I agree with you that if any resurface we can just add them to WP:BED. Is there a script or something I can run to remove them? I don't really fancy manually searching and removing 4,000 lines. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:29, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ideally we would also add all the sites to COIBot's redlist or monitorlist or something when we remove them, to make it easier to spot when they reappear. I'll ping Beetstra for that, although I don't think missing a few days will do any great harm. lp0 on fire () 10:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
If they haven't been hit for five years, I'd say it's unlikely we'll see them again (the spammers will most likely have moved on or evaded) but there's certainly no harm in getting COIBot to look out for them. I don't propose to do anything straightaway; I'll give it at least til next week to see if anyone else wants to chime in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Maybe we should notify somewhere like WP:VPR or WP:VPT? At minimum I'll drop a note at WT:RSPAM in case anyone watches that page but not this one and wants to have input. lp0 on fire () 17:55, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
We can also start with the first thousand or a couple hundreds that are older and much likelier to be unused and see how it goes. Ladsgroupoverleg 21:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Ladsgroup that domain was added to the blacklist, not to the blockeddomain group (I don't particularly like that list, it lacks possibility to whitelist which does happen to quite some domains). hss7architects.ae was spammed ON august 26 and blocked. Maybe the spammers finally got the message on that day, but it also appears that they have (small) gaps in attempts.
I hope your list is ONLY domains that were added > 5 years ago and did not get any hits in the last 5 years. We handle cases where spammers are active for 10 years with gaps of years, there are likely cases of material that was added 2 years ago, and have no or very little hits. We have cases where spammers are extremely slow spamming (to stay under the radar) and where domains show hence very little addition in the first place, even before being blacklisted. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just pondering further, maybe also a list should be created for links that were added once or twice by reasonable established users over the last 2 years (i.e. additions that can reasonably be assumed not to be spam), and a list where the link was only hit outside of content (e.g. in a WikiProject discussion). Sometimes people do try to add a link to a genuine place, hit the blacklist and walk away to do something else. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

When was the last time we had a dead website cull? MER-C 14:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

hi!
2020-03-06. but i did not delete entries of dead websites (404 etc.), but websites that had no hit in the blacklist log for the last years.
-- seth (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1379205660"