MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2018

InfoWars.com
There is no indication that InfoWars.com spams anyone. It is a political site which is right-leaning. The only possible reason for blacklisting is biased censorship. There are articles on Wikipedia that refer to the contributors of this site, but their work cannot be cited to refute the vandalism to their pages. InfoWars also has an article, so blacklisting it as spam is unjustifiable. Your consideration if greatly appreciated. --BobiusPrime (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was spammed, and across Wikimedia sites no less. Not to mention that a discussion on whether or not Infowars is worth using as a source has been had, and the answer was no, which led to local blacklisting. Even if you remove the local blacklisting, the global one will still block it, so asking here will not work unless and until you request it at meta as well. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 05:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I could easily and demonstrably question the reliability of the opinion articles that claim to be news on here. Unless the definition of spam has changed, InfoWars does not. I have read the site numerous times and I have not been deluged with unwanted messages or emails. The blacklisting of this site is malicious and unwarranted because some disagree with its content and views. --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the site was blacklisted globally because a bot was spamming it (note I am using the past tense verb form of the word) and was blacklisted locally as a consequence of the RfC linked above. There is no "malicious censorship" here. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 06:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please weigh your response against Wikipedia is not censored and criteria set forth in Spam blacklist. I believe you will find your argument is tenuous, at best. The site contains information pertinent to active article on Wikipedia, as well as having its own article. --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * . A) We generally do not blacklist on unreliability UNLESS there is a strong, independent RfC showing that it is really unwanted (to the level that the few cases that warrant use can be handled by whitelisting). That is the case for infowars, the strong opinion of the community is that it should NOT be used.  B) you are right, infowars is not spam.  And that is true for many websites on the spam blacklist.  However, what the spam blacklist is supposed to do is to stop editors from mass adding sites that are unwanted.  That happened to infowars: editors were mass-adding this site (and since that happened cross-wiki, it is now globally blacklisted).
 * You will need a new RfC showing community consensus for this site to be removed.
 * this has nothing to do with censoring, and all with community consensus. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your fast response, although I find it disappointing. My intent was to bring neutrality to a few articles that were arguably libelous in their content. I was not justifying the view of the subject matter, but rather putting their case in their own words. The "acceptable" citations used in the articles are mostly opinion pieces, a common mistake of non-academic folks. I would like for you to measure "community consensus" and "really unwanted" in terms of free speech, as popular speech requires no protection. --BobiusPrime (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your only rights are to fork the project or to leave. Wikipedia is not Congress and so it (or its community or the Arbitration Committee in responce to a particularly acidic topic area) may place whatever restrictions on speech they want. To deny this is to essentially say you have no right to limit what people do/say within your own household, or that businesses have no right to 86 customers who're causing a scene. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 07:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for deleting your comment. I believed it to be superfluous and did not relate to the point of my message directed to Beetstra. I am well aware that Wikipedia is a private enterprise, and therefore not subject to Constitutional or any other rights. My point was philosophical, in that "community consensus" can easily be a euphemism for censorship, which this site purports to disallow. --BobiusPrime (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED primarily appertains to causing offense. For example, the page Penis contains images. Furthermore, we have a page about Holocaust denial which describes claims made by holocaust deniers. So viewpoints worthy of note are expressed - but in the context of a balanced page. Coming back to InfoWars, the community has deemed InfoWars as an unreliable source. That's not censorship - we've just decided that we don't trust the claims made by a website. If those claims were reproduced in Reliable sources, then they would find a place in articles. It's not the claim itself that's censored, it's just not considered worthy of article space if its exclusively from InfoWars. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  07:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article on InfoWars. It may be worthy of review, since there may be insufficient balance to the page. A reader may not get a factual context due to repeated subjective wording. --BobiusPrime (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * that is not something that we have to discuss here, but on the article talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

COIBot and the spam blacklist log
COIBot is currently, in the 'free time' of the report saving module, backparsing the spam blacklist log, one wiki at a time. It turns out that one wiki is a humongous chunk of data, and that the bot spends quite some time before starting to parse reports again. Please be patient while this operation runs. The data is stored with the regular link additions, and the bots will then accessit in the same way as usual.

That likely results in certain parts of COIBot's reporting functions (on wiki and on IRC) to show strange results as some code may not understand how things are stored. I will resolve that later. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

tradingeconomic.com
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Criteria: I wanted to use a site (tradingeconomic.com) but was told that it was blacklisted. the site was the only one that seemed to have relevant data using a quick www search.  It seemed legit.  When i went to the blacklist, there was no reason given for barring this site.  how do I find out why it was barred and whether I should ask for a removal or exception?  (I am not an expert in the area and have no particular knowledge of the URL, but I do know that the data  (on the average wage in Kazakhstan) I wanted to use is in-line with what I have heard elsewhere.) Kdammers (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted by and the post from the archive is here.
 * Blacklisted by and the post from the archive is here.


 * Thank you for pointing me to the source. now, can you tell me what the criteria were?  I don't know what all those things listed are.  What is the English explaining the reason for blacklisting?  is it the curt 10-year-old sentence done a ways about a self-serving ip? Kdammers (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * those IPs had a conflict of interest with the subject, and were spamming the link. I guess your best way forward is to ask for whitelisting of the specific link - though it is 10 years ago that it is blacklisted, it is also 10 years that no-one needed it so badly that whitelisting was requested, which suggests that maybe the assessment of Hu12 was correct.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

astronauticsnow.com
Hello, can you please remove astronauticsnow.com from all blacklists. This is an educational site, maintained by a faculty member (professor at University of Southern California) and his research needs to be often cited for astronautics history, technical descriptions and research links. It would be helpful if you can let know the reasons, if any, for this domain to be blacklisted at the first place. I am unable to find any specific log entry that cites reasons for blocking this domain on English Wikipedia -- Aste520 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) I think this reqular expression is the problem that creating the false positive (blocking legit site astronauticsnow) \bastro(?:nauticsnow|sauce)\.com\b

-- Aste520 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) -- Aste520 (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , for this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This means I should file a separate request or is it deferred automatically.

-- Aste520 (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am looking for reasons, please hold on. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aste520 (talk • contribs)

Just to note that this was not likely a false positive, andthat the domain seems tobe with the same registrar since 2005. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The site owner's books (and his site which hosts book details and sales links) were massively spammed in October 2007 (for example by User:). I am not completely against second chances of course, especially after such a long time. But one of the main purposes of this so-called "educational site" is to promote the author's publications and theories, along with souvenirs like T-shirts and coffee mugs. Large parts of the site are little more than an expert blog mixed with an online shop, although some of the ressources may be of interest and some of his books have been sporadically cited in good faith. In short: this seems to be a problematic site and should only be used in special cases with some caution. A second chance might be OK, but the initial blacklisting was a perfectly reasonable measure imo. GermanJoe (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read the statement of User:GermanJoe (in line with my expectation that it was not a false positive). It has now been removed per WP:AGF and similar (WP:ROPE) but it will be monitored.  I note that you created Draft:Mike Gruntman (now cut-paste moved to User:Pi3146/sandbox) and that that page is not in line with our policies and guidelines (which is still fine in draft-state).  Please use this site with due care completely in line with our policies and guidelines, a re-blacklist will likely be indefinite.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

can you please link to previous records and users here (as this case is predating our tracking, it took me quite some time to find who added it and when, and it is not in the log). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)




 * The talkpage shows a few messages from involved volunteers cleaning up this case. The merged "... sauce" regex-statement was added with this diff in Januar 2009. The original older astronauticsnow.com statement on its own was added with this diff on 4 October 2007. Just a quick tip: I used WikiBlame ("View history" -> "Find addition/removal") with the complete respective regex lines as search criteria to find these diffs. Prior to the found date, you'll see some of the activities from the original spammer and the blacklisting volunteer (Alison) in their contributions during this time. Hope this helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I used WikiBlame as well for this. I could not find the editor though, just that Alison indeed blacklisted this in 2007.  Those were the early days of blacklisting, logs are incomplete to say the least.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@User:GermanJoe @Dirk Beetstra I am trying to get educated here, so bear with me ! Prof. Gruntman has his website (AstronauicsNow) where he publishes his research, blog, videos and also promotes materials( sales). He is one of the leading authority on certain domains of astronautics (Energetic Neutral Atoms). His site acts as one of the first pages to understand a flash/current event in astronautics domain (on his point of view) before the issue gets in depth explained in mass media coverage/peer reviewed, which can be then considered "cited" ok. Are we contesting here, what citations are OK and what are not ? Regarding spamming, Is it the issue that wiki users spam his page (he complains) or his users spam wiki? Or is it that promoting stuff on own private webpage to sell (books, so verniers) illegal? The idea of having his wikipage is that we need to know about him, and if intersted further than go to all external links or citations poining to his research, videos, books and views. I have cited the books to their amazon page (is it a problem?)

I am new user, I am just trying to grasp in order to make the page conform to your policy. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * as this forum is primarily focussing on spam-related aspects, I have posted a few tips about reliable sources on your user talkpage. Of course the topics are loosely connected, but a detailed answer about reference usage would have been a bit off-topic here. Hope these tips are helpful. GermanJoe (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe @Dirk Beetstra Hello, is it possible that you can give us a list where the links of www.astronauticsnow.com are there still "spamming" on wiki (i only find one with NYT Goddard which is legit). I will clean them up if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * it could not be spammed anymore, it was blacklisted and all old inappropriate occurrences where removed. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: links, even in references, to Amazon are NOT ok, they exist to sell. ISBN is more than sufficient. Now that you've said that, I start to question your reasons for this request and wonder if you fully adhere to Terms of use. The way you word stuff I suspect that you failed to declare things. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

And can someone please see how those nearly 500 references came to be. Did the spamming continue without directlinks and we did not notice? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dirk Beetstra : There is very little control on how people cite stuff, this spamming can be done by retailers or just friends, students etc. Now before I started this bio page, I inherited this spamming problem...I am myself interested on how those book references came about being, it ll great if you can dig in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you please respond to my remarks regarding Terms of use and whether you fail to declare things (see WP:COI)?
 * There are things that we can do to control spamming - we blacklist stuff and block editors. It is however more tricky to catch than plain link spamming, but that astronauticsnow.com was blacklisted due to spamming does suggest that we have to be more restrictive for this maybe.  Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox or a vehicle for promotion (and I have adapted your draft and started to remove some puffery and inappropriate linking there ..).  Whatever your reply to this first paragraph of this reply of me, you still have to adhere to our policies and guidelines.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dirk Beetstra Firstly, you are assuming that I know what happened in 2007-9. I don't. I started writing this bio and now come across articles citing his books, journals (peer reviewed) and website/blog etc all over wiki. How am i supposed to declare things i dont know (10 ys ago!). Now when i look at other bio pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_W._Toga i do find linkedin as references (so i include them), you remove them (its ok)--same logic for amazon (its good you removed, now i know). The reason its sandbox is that I am myself on the learning curve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not assuming that, nor was I asking about 10 years ago, my question was addressed to you now (you don't have to answer, but your removed remark suggests that you are then editing in violation of our terms of use - but I may be wrong). Regarding other pages with LinkedIn profiles: see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The article Arthur W. Toga is very self-serving in references, not a good example to follow. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dirk Beetstra To answer your question.....when i started writing his bio, most of references i wanted to use (books, journals, papers, blogs) were readily available on his webpage, including conference talks/videos, but I found it blocked. It was moreover baffling to see the reasons ( as revealed later site spamming). Then I see he is already the most cited entity on wiki ENA's article which also used drawings (cited) from his website (but blocked). Then i come across another 500+ references of his book, which we already are well aware is sort of standard reference on rocket/space history across academia. http://www.worldcat.org/title/blazing-the-trail-the-early-history-of-spacecraft-and-rocketry/oclc/54852580. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, but that still does not answer my concerns regarding any conflict of interest and adhereing to the Terms of use of thiswebsite. Also, you seem to speak in plurals ('we'), suggesting multiple users on this account.  You state that his site has to be cited (who is telling you so)?  Also you want to change Google books to a dedicated sales page.  That gives the strong impression that you have a relation to the subject.  If you have such a relation, you should declare that.  And in any case, you should not use a shared account, and you should adhere to a neutral point of view.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dirk Beetstra I am myself a Space Physicist and have extensively read,  and followed the author's work for years. I am assuming, no history/sociology major will or should write about a Medical Surgeon (and his work) he likes. There will be some 'soft" affiliation, either due to being in same field or interests or academia acquaintances. Now coming to why amazon and not google, because google is simply scanned copy of the book (with/without permission), whereas amazon provides a much cleaner preview, bio about the author and also book excerpt/review. furthermore, google books itself provides links to amazon, barns and nobles etc for buying any book. Now does google promote sales, Yes, it does give start ratings and own reviews with sales links.. https://books.google.com/books?id=F0kyMbpRLYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+suitable+boy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ0NKE8YDfAhUP_1QKHaevAJMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=a%20suitable%20boy&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for that answer. You'd be surprised what people write about.  Agreed, often there is a soft connection, but for many there is not.  Anyway, still articles have to adhere to our policies and guidelines.
 * Regarding Amazon vs. Google ... the cleanness of the preview, for verifyability it does not make a difference. ISBN is sufficient for people to find their prefered copy.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Its a very intersting take, that if someone writes a book, extensively cites and provides material on the book on his webpage, they will provide a link for its sales as well, whats wrong ! its the same for journals too..they give you free citation/abstract, and ask for money to access full document, its still promoting journal sales — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, but do you know the difference between Wikipedia and those sites. Again, we are not writing a soapbox here, we are writing an encyclopedia.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dirk Beetstra well, as I understand, the point is, no matter what any wiki author writes, it should be verifiable (by readers). Now, the issue is what all things are considered cited OK here. google books is fine for you, amazon is not. I can cite a journal with just abstract available for public access (not complete article), but not someones private page (incl author's) with full article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the article is available online or not, or just accessible to few, does not make a difference. It is about the ability of verification.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

verywellmind.com


Recent spammers
 * followed by
 * followed by
 * others
 * others

There is also

that are being added to pages by students and people new to editing about health. It would be better if people didn't use them... but that is not what this list is for. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Back at it today. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 23:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

web3mantra.com


Spamming for an ad-based blog by various IPs. I would usually not report a domain after only a few spam edits, but the deceptive usage of an external tool indicates a professional spammer who knows full well what they are doing to game Wikipedia's anti-spam measures. The domain has no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

ecclegen.com
Unreliable source spammed by user with unusual editing pattern. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 23:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what is unreliable about ecclegen? it seems soundly based on 19th c records--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed


A report by the Pew research center shows that Buzzfeed is universally considered to be an untrustworthy newsource, invariant of political leanings.  It produces largely entertainment based articles, which are often salacious though occasionally tries to report on politics with limited success, often using loaded phrasing and presumptuous wording. For example here is a video where buzzfeed spends a full 3 minutes asking accusatory and leading questions and again, which have no encyclopedic value. It has been caught plagiarizing material, sometimes from wikipedia which makes it unsuitable to cite for among other reasonsWP:Circular. It has been caught failing to disclose paid sponsorship, and holds strong political views in a way which could both compromise its factual accuracy. For details on incidents see BuzzFeed.Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally we do not blacklist on reliability only, we either need abuse (i.e. editors spamming Wikipedia with the link), or failing that, a clear community consensus (RfC?) showing gross misuse or indeed that it is so generally not a reliable source that additions should be strictly controlled (blacklist the source, only allow linking after scrutiny in a whitelist request). Do we have such discussions available?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's consensus to blacklist BuzzFeed at this time, since 8 previous discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard show that editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent, but not generally unreliable. If you want to see whether the consensus has changed, I recommend starting a request for comment at WP:RSN. —  Newslinger  talk   08:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually some Buzzfeed content is exceptional, the issue is that the domain doesn't distinguish between clickbait crap and Buzzfeed News' original reporting. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Most content from BuzzFeed News was actually migrated to a separate domain (buzzfeednews.com) in July of this year (see report from Nieman Lab). However, even the content from the main BuzzFeed domain is being defended by enough editors that it wouldn't be "generally unreliable". —  Newslinger  talk   08:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, missed that, thanks. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sponsored consumer finance blogs


Native advertising. Previously reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2018 Archive Nov 1, with no comment from other editors. —  Newslinger  talk   13:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

mahakfilms.com
Spammed in a few articles over a decent time frame:, , , , ,. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

robert-matthees.de

 * links


 * users

Systematic recurring spam by various single-purpose IPs for a marketing consultant (= a blogger and occasional speaker), see COI reports. The cxo.co.com domain is probably an outdated mirror domain, but please blacklist it too to be safe. GermanJoe (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * this appears to be cross-wiki spam, please report it there. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Done - copied the whole thing to meta with a few minor tweaks. GermanJoe (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Links being spammed by Zafarmujahid


Persistent spamming; first adding a pirate site link, then next adding fitnesssolutionstips.com 5 times. No legit use here on Wikipedia. theinstantmatrix (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

MoneySavingExpert.com
I created the article for this site many years ago (or rather rescued an article that had been created that looked like a spam page). This is an extremely well know and well respected UK website. The reason I'm aware it is on the blacklist is because of a removal of citation links that seemed to think these links were part of a spam campaign (Link). I myself may be responsible for a great number of these links (usually logged off because I rarely log in) because MoneySavingExpert.com's forums and founder seem to upset a lot of people and they come over to Wikipedia to vent. There have been many malicious edits over the years. Often silly. Most recently I added a citation link (here) because someone had inexplicably removed text that its founder was indeed its founder (Link). Aldaden (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

...Additional info here Aldaden (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This was blacklisted (together with others) as they are self-serving blogs and forums. There will be some specific use, but generally they should not be used.  For what needs to be use (specific links) whitelisting will suffice: .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How can the UK's biggest consumer advocacy website, and one of the biggest websites in the UK of any description, be classified as a "self-serving blog and forum"? This is a campaigning website in the news weekly that's even regularly consulted by the British government because it is recognised for its work in consumer rights: Example Many, Many More Examples Aldaden (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The links I saw removed are to blogs and forums, on the article of the subject. Also elsewhere, blogs and forums do not belong.  'It is a campaigning website' -> if there is any case where the campaign has its merits, then that will be referenced elsewhere (i.e., on secondary sources, i.e. e.g. on the sources you mention).  Just like the government hosted petition sites, this is material that is  only needed if someone else is reporting on the primary source.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But does it merit being on a spam blacklist? I have not seen the links you mention. Is there conclusive proof, or even high probability, that there has been a nefarious campaign? As you say, it's not a really big deal if links have to be whitelisted. The reason this is of interest to me is that MoneySavingExpert is such a well known and well respected site that I don't like to see it being classified in this way and a barrier to any future editor who wants to reference it in the future. The ironic thing is that the site is mentioned in the news so much in the news that I could personally find alternative third-part sources for any link you have issue with - but I'm not sure I can be bothered. Any spammer or representative for the site would undoubtedly make time. Aldaden (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't continue to comment. As I mentioned in the link above, I barely use the site anymore. I would though appreciate if you'd bare with me sas I summarise the current decision as a way to point out the strange situation as I see it...
 * Moneysavingexpert is a big website. one of the biggest in the UK. It is part of the massive moneysupermarket group. What I'm getting at is that they must have a LOT of money. If they were involved in reputation management and spam on Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure they'd employ someone incredibly well experienced and paid a lot of money. The moneysavingexpert article would be beautifully written and about 5 times as long. I have already linked to hundreds of mentions of the site by UK gov not mentioned in the article. So you can see the article only mentions a tiny fraction of what the site has done and campaigned on. Also, if they wanted to spam here they would be spamming in a beautifully subtle way.
 * But, as far as I know, the site does not do that. They maintain an ethical policy. As a result, they have a poorly written article that has had a warning at the top about how poor it is for as long as I can remember. Their metions on Wikipedia are made by idiots like me making good faith edits using links and citations to their blog and forums thinking we're helping by linking to useful and relevenat citations/information. And because of this ethical behaviour they have now been put on a spam blacklist, and they will probably remain there forever because they probably won't send someone to come here and fix their article and reputation. They will be subject to edits like the one I linked to above that states "... site is a native advertising spam bin ...".
 * I'd be genuinely interested if someone can say how the logic of my summary is flawed? Do the links that have been removed really have characteristics of what you would expect to see from SEO employees of a website or organisation the size of Moneysavingexpert/Moneysupermarket? I mean.I could understand this being seen as spam if it were someones side-hustle blog and they'd made a half-assed attempt to get link juice. Aldaden (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

goatsedance.com
Domain

Editor

Being added to articles by LTA vandal as fake references, adult content. -- Longhair\talk 09:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

fans143.com
Minor obnoxious flare-up. Two accounts, and  had been indeffed for spamming, then 183.83.128.42 takes a swing. Nihar then tries to spam his talk page. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

onlinecourses.ooo
Spammed by

Spamming for coupon site, continued with IP after block of original spam account (likely professional SEO). udemycoupon.org is a redirect, that was also used and is still active. Deceptive edit summaries and overwriting of valid references. GermanJoe (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 14:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

bonusseeker.com


Spamming for a betting website. 2 previous warnings have been ignored, no foreseeable encyclopedic usage (not a RS). GermanJoe (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

googlevideo.com


Hello I'm trying to post evidence of an edit I have made to Gordon Ramsay's wikipedia page and the link, which is a from a Q&A done by him over gogglevideo.com, triggers a protection filter and cannot be used as reference. I have no idea what's causing this because I can't see the log files and since I cannot find any other source on the matter it would be really helpful if googlevideo.com can be unblocked? Cos93 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is globally blacklisted. I suggest you ask for local whitelisting of the movie you want to use (see instructions at the whitelist):, .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Docmanager


Please blacklist. -KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Spammers:


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Just for documentation (no action needed), 122.169.110.158 tried to continue to spam the domain with a redlinked internal Wiki-link. GermanJoe (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

BookEventZ.com
Hi I have been trying to draft an article in which I used a link from this site on the page. However it triggers a protection filter and I cannot use the link in my article. This page is purely descriptive and in no way is it trying to advocate the promotion of the company. I'm aware it was blacklisted because of excessive advertising and promotion, but the page i want to use the link in is not a promotional page. It is only for providing users with information they can benefit from. It is merely to help users online find information on the subject of event management and simplify their work in the same. Would be really helpful if bookeventz.com can be unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carina Judith Fernandes (talk • contribs)
 * , we are not going to remove this after all the spamming by multiple socks and IPs, and all the ignored warnings. When your page goes from your sandbox to mainspace (i.e., if you can find enough independent sourcing to show the subject is notable), you can ask for whitelisting as per instructions there for the official website of a subject.  Therefore, .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

bajajfinserv.in


Hi, As I was reading on Wikipedia i saw bajajfinserv.in is blacklisted in spam domains list then i decided to let Wikipedia know to remove this domain from blacklisted domains list because bajajfinserv.in is official website of Bajaj Finserv, a company in India Registered under Government of India as NBFC (Non Banking Financial Corporation) to provide various types of loans, insurance, wallet, online digital wallets etc. Bajaj Finserv wiki is here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajaj_Finserv It is quite an old company in India which got registered under Reserve Bank of India in 2009. I don't how and why it was added to spam list but its a good company providing valuable services to people as on their website. Their website data can help in Wikipedia to increase knowledge to its users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetichopralive (talk • contribs)
 * This link has been spammed excessively in the past, likely amateurish SEO activities by the company itself. I would note that you attempted to add this link in the same way - a simple spamref to a product offering list, then rotated through various URL shorteners to try forcing it through.  Kuru   (talk)  14:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

antiturkishandjapanese.blogspot.com
Talk page spamming by one certain IP hopper in attempts to make personal attacks on a certain editor.(Diffs: 1, 2, etc.) --Paul_012 (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

gofundme.com
Trying to add references to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoFundMe#Notable_projects. It's a chart of the most notable/high raising instances. Currently the entire chart is unsourced. If possible, whitelist it for just that specific page, not necessarily for all of Wikipedia. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a specific page to request a whitelisting, and it isn't here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 18:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , you know that to show that it is notable it should be secondary sourced. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * true, but for citing how much money was raised, secondary sources will always be out of date for the actual amount.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * we are not writing a newspaper. And I fully against whitelisting active fundraisers, Wikipedia is nothereto boosttheir popularity (further).  A secondary source is what you need, acouple of days behind does not change the fact.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

digitalmediareview111.blogspot.com
Spammed by Blacklist please. —RainFall 06:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Kuru   (talk)  17:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)