MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2021

tripprivacy.com


This appears to be a Malaysian tour operator's website. The above-referenced IP has spammed it into the external-links sections of many food-related articles. See, e.g.,, as well as all of the other contributions from the IP. Thanks for considering this. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Noting that an IP (different from the above) attempted to blank this report. - MrOllie (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention, handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

detec.in
The username of "detecdevice" strongly suggests that the user has connection(s) with the website (domain name "detec") and has also spammed the link several times (Special:Diff/1015220944 Special:Diff/1015220724). However, the user itself has been blocked from editing. The IP also added several external links from this website. (Special:Diff/1015218720 Special:Diff/1015219419 Special:Diff/1015219797 Special:Diff/1015220535) ''Kind regards. —Twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions)'' 08:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, no need to generate extra work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

irockersup.com.au
Spamming campaign by multiple IPs with repeat copyright violations; to blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

tripprivacy.com - removal
I think the website should not be on the blacklist. It was adding some value and more information about Food In Malaysia. And the post was adding more information about more foods. post like included. www.tripprivacy.com/food-in-malaysia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.202.35.212 (talk • contribs)
 * As you can see in the recent request above, it was deferred to our global list for blacklisting because of your cross-wiki efforts. Good luck. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The intent could never been to cross wiki efforts. I hope to review the request again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:FC89:5E:4537:BFDC:B038:330:81DF (talk • contribs)

I see you already delete many websites from blocklist and they don't even apply to be removed from blacklist. I wish you consider that tripprivacy.com that you will remove later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:FC88:5:920B:731C:966E:8935:D79F (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, all the links were removed as they were deemed unsuitable. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes Dirk but the website still on the blacklist. Can you remove it ?

Yes Dirk but the website still on the blacklist. Can you remove it ? Nancy Jemer (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No; for the last time it is not blacklisted here, but rather blacklisted on Meta.wikimedia.org, which is a different site. However, they're not going to remove it there either because (1) you spammed the heck out of it all over multiple wikis and (2) it's useless for any of our projects. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

dyingscene.com - removal

 * dyingscene.com/ds-exclusive-interview-with-krum-bums-discuss-new-album-cut-the-noose-tours-and-canada/
 * dyingscene.com/ds-exclusive-interview-with-krum-bums-discuss-new-album-cut-the-noose-tours-and-canada/

I am trying to create a page for the band Krum Bums and attempted to cite an interview that was published on Dying Scene's website, but it appears to be blacklisted due to "repeat spamming of NN zine" in November 2009. I wondered what that was in reference to and if the interview link might be taken off the blacklist. The website contains vital information for the band's bibliographic information.

Thehistorian17 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per previous removal discussions (which you can find if you search the archives), this site was the subject of several spam campaigns in the past, and is unlikely to be removed unless a case is made by a trusted, high-volume editor. For your purposes of adding a particular link, whitelisting should suffice. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

damplips.com
A user vandalised a talk page by inserting a link to this porn site on it. There is no use for a porn site on Wikipedia. If a user clicks on this link, they will see things they can never unsee. Spare them the psychological damage and blacklist this smutty site, please. HelenDegenerate (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist - COIBot says that it's been used a LOT for porn vandalism. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

bestbettingsites co uk
See COIBot for previous spammers. Also: Same pattern of editing by throw-away accounts. Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

vimeodownload.com
Mickyskidy is behind another blacklisted website, and has persistently added links to vimeodownload.com, which looks very much like a knockoff site hosting copyright material without release. This site is of no encyclopaedic value. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

After removing my last edit i haven't added anymore link to Wikipedia so why blacklisting it Mickyskidy (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please blacklist this site - the link added in this edit is a copy-paste from this legit source and of course not even a courtesy link. Junk site that steals content.  Ravensfire  (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, "I haven't spammed the copyright-violating site for an entire 24 hours, so why are you blacklisting it?" is a new one. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --GeneralNotability (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted globally, and blocked Mickyskidy for good measure. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , excellent, thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

temporary-url.com


This website's been used to try and bypass our blacklist (as an example, on Draft:Pat Pharith to cite a blacklisted website); the site also seems somewhat suspicious. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * if it is a redirect site, it goes on meta: --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

dhunt.in
URL shortener for English wikipedia blacklisted site dailyhunt in (added MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2020). [dhunt.in/8benH].  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

influencermarketinghub.com
User-Generated content.--2600:1004:B012:39A9:B5BE:4650:3D33:DF1E (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

everythreeweekly.com
Like the Onion, it’s satire and thus should not be used on articles. --2600:1004:B085:CF22:BD2F:816B:B486:68C5 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it being spammed? I don't see any links to it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I am another IP but it’s not being spammed, it’s just satire.--2600:1004:B012:39A9:B5BE:4650:3D33:DF1E (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't preemptively blacklist every site that's not suitable as a reference. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , no abuse shown. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

wikipedia.ind.in
See Special:Diff/1017618158. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

ADL.org
Trying to put a page in, I realized they were blacklisted somehow. I can only assume this was a mistake, as it’s a reputable organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a1c0:6d40:7d60:fdf5:824f:3456 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ADL isn't blacklisted and you didn't hit the blacklist, what is the exact url you were trying to use? TAXIDICAE💰  20:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to add . Link directly to the WaPo, with https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/17/why-the-u-a-e-is-calling-2-american-groups-terrorists/, and your edit will save. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

econlib.org
This is a legitimate site to use for references, apparently added because of spam by a paid editor, but that doesn't justify putting the entire site on the blacklist. It looks like previous requests to remove it were declined for ideological reasons, which is highly disturbing. ("It's a libertarian think tank and therefore an unreliable source.") The spam blacklist should not be abused to censor a particular point of view. (I am not a fan of libertarianism, for the record; I am a fan of NPOV.) — Omegatron (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it was spammed by a paid editing ring with a conflict of interest. That alone is enough reason to blacklist it.  Almost all information that is there can be found elsewhere, often even on our own wikisource.  For the rare cases where information is really nowhere else it can be whitelisted, and that is enough to keep it blacklisted. Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice you attempted to use their blog, not the material elsewhere hosted on the site. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is that reason to blacklist it? The spam blacklist should only be used for spam, for domains that have no valid uses.  This domain is clearly not a spam domain.  Bad editing should be handled using blocks and other tools.
 * I didn't attempt to use anything myself, but all the references on this page should be allowed.
 * These links can't be found elsewhere, I checked to see if there were any mirrors and there aren't.
 * Do you mean that "econlog" is the blog? Can that be whitelisted, at least? — Omegatron (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I said 'it was spammed by a paid editing ring with a conflict of interest'. The spam blacklist is to protect against spamming.  Websites are not spam, the behaviour of inappropriately promoting is the problem.  Websites are not spam.  If the website owners of CNN would start inappropriately pushing their links cnn.com becomes spam.  Now, for CNN there are a massive number of other uses outweighing that spam, and we would likely have to resort to other measures to curb that.  Here, however, we are talking about an almost completely replaceable repository of out-of-copyright material (and even if it is not replaceable, it is not an obligation to link to an online copy per sé, linking to the original hard copy works equally well), and a blog (which, with exceptions, do generally not make good reliable sources).  The only unique material on the site is whitelisted.
 * Yes, you did, you attempted to add the blog links. Now, I can see that for that page they make good primary references (though that page is then heavily dependent on primary sourcing, blog posts, and similar), and yes, for that links can be whitelisted.  I do not think that the blog is of general use (and the blog was also part of the spamming by the editing ring), I would therefore suggest to get those specific links whitelisted for this goal:  (sorry for the bureaucracy, but that makes it more transparent and easier to log). Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it should be noted that the econlib spammer was also largely responsible for the pre-redirect version of the article in question, and for the assiduous promotion of Bryan Caplan on Wikipedia. This request is essentially to whitelist Vipul's spam on one of Vipul's articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I noticed, as well as that the article was largely referenced to primary / blog sources. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, regarding 'block and other tools', we are not here to play whack-a-mole with sockpuppets and IP farms. Where possible we would, but if we are handling a paid-editing ring of editors (editors whose 'job' it is to make sure that the spam stays), blocks are not going to cut the deal.  They will just make another account and continue.  It pays their bills.  The only way to stop that is to make sure that they can't spam anymore.  Yes, that may land websites that have some limited use on the blacklist, but that is why we have a whitelist to ensure that the use we allow is appropriate.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * : Ok, but using the spam blacklist to deal with bad user behavior is like using a bomb to kill a mouse. It's causing a lot of collateral damage to people who should be able to post legitimate links to those domains, and have to go through this tedious process to get every individual link whitelisted.  It would be better if users who have proven themselves to not be spammers could just add links like this directly (while the spam blacklist was only used for actual spam, malware, etc.)
 * CNN should not be added to the blacklist either, just because someone is abusing it. (I doubt that it would actually get added, anyway. The abuse would be dealt with in a less harmful way.)
 * I see what you mean by "attempting to add the blog links", but I didn't add them myself; I was trying to revert to a previous version that had them.
 * Anyway, I will try the whitelist... — Omegatron (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , we clearly assessed that here. Most links are clearly replaceable, and blog links have a very limited use.  Collateral damage is hence small, this is one of the very few pages that carries these links.  Note that some heavily abused websites do also have legitimate use.  Accounts are cheap, IP addresses more so. Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * : In what sense are the links "replaceable"? They are the only URLs that point to this content that I can find.  Can you give an example of a "replacement" link for the banned references? — Omegatron (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, that is the blog that is not replaceable. There is other material outside the blog that is replaceable. Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , and the blog is, of course, a blog, so not a RS. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , and the blog is, of course, a blog, so not a RS. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a think-tank, not a library: its mission is to promote libertarian thought. Virtually all references to econlib can be (and have been) replaced with neutral archives like Gutenberg. Removing this site from the blacklist will require periodic time-consuming cleanup, as was needed before - Vipul was only one of the agenda editors spamming this. It should remain on the blacklist. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting that there is a direct connection between Vipul and Caplan (i.e. Vipul has a conflict of interest), and that Vipul was running a (albeit declared) paid editing ring. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

online-gambling.com
In cleaning up after this site I found what appears to be a pattern of its addition through throw-away accounts:


 * Kerala State Lotteries: Special:Diff/1018306763
 * Wisconsin Lottery: Special:Diff/1006708133
 * Sic bo: Special:Diff/1005800285
 * Wynn Resorts: Special:Diff/1001919366
 * World Poker Tour: Special:Diff/1007330728
 * Flutter Entertainment: Special:Diff/1001705086
 * Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino: Special:Diff/1001908298
 * Howard Andrew: Special:Diff/1007499259
 * Turner Sports: Special:Diff/1001783222
 * Doug Polk: Special:Diff/1007316662
 * Drone Racing League: Special:Diff/1001436161
 * Greyhound Board of Great Britain: Special:Diff/1001886565
 * Atlantic Lottery Corporation: Special:Diff/1007510774
 * Gambling Commission: Special:Diff/1013972801
 * Gambling Commission: Special:Diff/1001895485
 * The Cromwell Las Vegas: Special:Diff/1001711423
 * Skycity_Entertainment_Group: Special:Diff/1001788088
 * Roulette: Special:Diff/1005655924
 * Baccarat (card game): Special:Diff/1006949171
 * Baccarat (card game): Special:Diff/1018107290
 * DraftKings: [[Special:Diff/1001707853
 * Virgin Hotels Las_Vegas: Special:Diff/1001900289
 * Sky Betting & Gaming: Special:Diff/1001905327
 * Intralot: Special:Diff/1001791038
 * Daily fantasy sports: Special:Diff/1005479262
 * Pai gow poker: Special:Diff/1006523843
 * Gambling_in_the_Philippines: Special:Diff/1017107996
 * The Cromwell Las Vegas: Special:Diff/1001711423
 * Skycity_Entertainment_Group: Special:Diff/1001788088
 * Roulette: Special:Diff/1005655924
 * Baccarat (card game): Special:Diff/1006949171
 * Baccarat (card game): Special:Diff/1018107290
 * DraftKings: [[Special:Diff/1001707853
 * Virgin Hotels Las_Vegas: Special:Diff/1001900289
 * Sky Betting & Gaming: Special:Diff/1001905327
 * Intralot: Special:Diff/1001791038
 * Daily fantasy sports: Special:Diff/1005479262
 * Pai gow poker: Special:Diff/1006523843
 * Gambling_in_the_Philippines: Special:Diff/1017107996
 * Intralot: Special:Diff/1001791038
 * Daily fantasy sports: Special:Diff/1005479262
 * Pai gow poker: Special:Diff/1006523843
 * Gambling_in_the_Philippines: Special:Diff/1017107996
 * Pai gow poker: Special:Diff/1006523843
 * Gambling_in_the_Philippines: Special:Diff/1017107996
 * Gambling_in_the_Philippines: Special:Diff/1017107996
 * Gambling_in_the_Philippines: Special:Diff/1017107996

The most recent addition was yesterday (LoganWN). Arllaw (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Maybe it is worth to open an SPI to see if underlying IPs can be blocked and whether other related users (which may have spammed other links) show up.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Sockpuppet_investigations/Pampelonne for the complete sockfarm.  thanks for filing, are there any more domains that we need to blacklist?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

iplt20


Official Website of Indian Premier League has been blocked. i.e. iplt20 So unable to cite references about Official News, Press releases etc., So either I need permission to edit or the block has been removed. Kirubar (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * please read the instructions at the top of this page. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 00:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

zivallo.pk


Self published 'news' blog. Not a reliable source. Syedmehmood11 self identified as the site owner, and was blocked in March. IP edits since then have likely been block evasion. - MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

bestgore.com
Please blacklist per this RfC. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Thanks for closing the RfC. —  Newslinger  talk   02:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

thebioquick.com
Spam campaigning from named account and IPs. to blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

123telugumoviehd.com
Third IP (at least) spamming this site, plus the two named users (at least). Time for the Clue-by-four.  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've actually blacklisted this site based on the report on WP:RSPAM, now archived at . I didn't realize the domain was reported here as well. —  Newslinger  talk   03:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've deduplicated the entry at Special:Diff/1019575561. All good now. —  Newslinger  talk   03:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks for fixing that up, . GeneralNotability (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

moneysavingexpert.com
I was shocked to discover that moneysavingexpert.com was listed on the spam blacklist. It is a reliable source for financial issues in the UK and I regularly make financial decisions based on its content. It was sold to a comparison site in 2012 - see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18295587 - however the content is general purpose and unbiased towards any particular company. Martin Lewis who founded the site also regularly appears on TV and Radio. I would still support the forums being blacklisted because they can have user generated content. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ; per the last request, few (if any) links from this site would qualify as reliable sources. Whitelisting is sufficient on a per-case basis. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m puzzled as to why you think the content is sponsored. It’s not sponsored, but the links are affiliate links just like anywhere else on the internet. If the Guardian or Washington Post or whoever does product reviews they use affiliate links if possible. Hell even on car insurance they have an open criteria for ranking sites and mention all the competitors for MoneySupermarket - https://www.moneysavingexpert. com/insurance/car-insurance/-- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 29 affiliate links in that article, which is more than enough for the article to be considered a questionable source due to its "apparent conflict of interest". Sources such as have been excluded for much less. —  Newslinger   talk   01:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Any article reviewing products in an MSM source will use affiliate links, even people like Which use affiliate links (see https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/03/asda-mobile-switches-to-the-vodafone-network-what-does-it-mean-for-you/ for example). Obviously you want to exclude people who rank based on the money they get from affiliate links - however excluding people who simply use them and rank impartially seems like a really weird decision. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Best Sim-only deals on EE networks" section of that Which? article is also unreliable sponsored content, although the remainder is acceptable. The same applies to sponsored content in publications that are otherwise acceptable, including . The majority of the links on MoneySavingExpert.com's home page lead to sponsored content, which is why the domain remains on the spam blacklist. —  Newslinger  talk   07:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe organisations that have been trusted to provide product or financial advice for 10-50 years would throw all that away just because they use affiliate links? If you believe such people would throw away their impartiality over affiliate link income which they are transparent about how do you know they aren’t being paid to give good reviews for products? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , per Ohnoitsjamie and Newslinger: for specific links on this domain.  Most of the site (especially the blogs and the forum) are not suitable for use in Wikipedia with very, very few exceptions.  There may be a case for the /news part of the site, but even there the use is limited.  If you want anything broader, I would suggest that you get a positive thread from WP:RSN (and we would still do that through the whitelist).  And yes, there is crap on other sites as well that should not be used because its reliability is questionable, that is not a reason to include this one.  This item will have to pass the bars on its own merits.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

hdfreechannel.com


See COIBot reports. Livestream event spam. virtualtvlive.com was spammed by only one user, but both resolve to the IP address, so just blocking the hdfreechannel.com is likely to be ineffective. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

moviestream.live


See COIBot report. More livestream event spam. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

iplt20.com


This is the official website of the Indian Premier League. It has been used in all the articles related to the IPL. It has been blocked recently. No reason for this to be blocked. ☎️  Churot  DancePop 08:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. My apologies, this domain was inadvertently caught in a spam report that included other domains that were inappropriately added by the same cluster of users. —  Newslinger   talk   08:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I documented a set of domains added by a set of spammers, and this was one of the domains added by one of the IPs in the range. We did not further scrutinize the additions enough on this one.  Thanks for reporting. Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

facts.org.cn
While tidying up the BLP of a religious figure, two users seem to prevent any attempt from removing this website as a reliable source. The purpose of this website seems to be used by some authorities in China to crack down on religious groups and other specific groups There is no way to verify the story covered by the website articles. It has been discussed on Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * Jun Hong Lu: Special:Diff/1020168563
 * Jun Hong Lu: Special:Diff/1020168563
 * Jun Hong Lu: Special:Diff/1019653514
 * Jun Hong Lu: Special:Diff/1019653514

Thank you very much for your attention and precious time AutoPrime (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

pv-magazine.com
This website which offers useful information on solar power and the solar industry appears to be blocked by accident due to \bpv-magazine\.com\b being blacklisted. Is there any way to ensure that the URL will be usable again? --Ildottoreverde (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not accidentally blacklisted; see the many entries in the archives; most recently, here. As with previous requests, . OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it has useful information that it regurgitates from the original source. Only very little information on this site is original. Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If we held all sources to this standard, Wikipedia would be a much smaller, or at least much less sourced website. Note that most newspapers these days largely "regurgitate" agency bulletins and press releases. But you do you, while the solar power articles remain current as of 2008. --Ildottoreverde (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , we do have that standard, we remove primary sources / replace them with proper sources. Moreover, this was, heavily, spammed, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Mar_1, which does not happen for other sources. Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That spam happened 10 years ago and came from a single user. Clearly the reason the website is still on the blacklist has nothing to do with spam. Finally I don't see how the accusation that the website "regurgitates" information found elsewhere can be a violation of the standard against primary sources. If anything, it could be considered a tertiary source - and I've yet to see any evidence that it's not a reliable one. --Ildottoreverde (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see you missed the 'the many entries in the archives', but well. And that spam happened 10 years ago is hardly ever an argument (5 years was certainly not enough).  And you clearly did not read the thread, I see 9 there alone.
 * Most of the cases discussed result in an alternative link being proposed. I guess we will have to discuss that specific link you need at the whitelist.  Or you manage to get a consensus that this is a universally useful site through a discussion on WP:RSN. Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After seeing the phalanx of admins defending the ban with circular reasoning, I've decided to do something more useful with my life.--Ildottoreverde (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreasonable approach by wikipedia to ban sources that inform on mining activities and energy production worldwide.73.240.74.203 (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't. We only blacklisted a heavily-spammed site that scrapes such sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

intelius.com


Several celebrity and biographic articles are linked to this site, sometimes with the text "People Search from Intelius searches billions of public records instantly. Search free now!" 148.75.197.131 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a removal request? It is not blacklisted at the moment. Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This link would make more sense in the Proposed additions section. Intelius is a service to lookup people, a somewhat advanced phonebook, and falls in the same category as PeopleFinders.com or instantcheckmate.com. These links would only be helpful/necessary on articles on themselves. Definitely not reliable sources for BLP-articles though. Could we just blacklist these or should there be a broader discussion at e.g. WP:RSN first? – NJD-DE (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that. I've moved it to the additions section. 148.75.197.131 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

three domains spammed by at least three accounts




All links removed now (a few dozen in total). Robarguns.com looks like it was at one point an official gun manufacturer website, but is now a spammy content farm like the other two. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

delphnews.com


Describes itself as a news site, with apparent sole focus on celebrity. User just blocked for spam editing as a paid employee of the site (spam linking to the site always marked as minor edits, after being warned repeatedly, note this edit where they self-identify as an employee, then reverting it and continuing to spam links). 23 pages linked all now removed and all irrelevant. Suggest spam listing to prevent further paid subversive editing. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 14:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)