MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2019

earnmoneyonline-2019.blogspot.com
Spammed to multiple articles by multiple IPs. -LiberatorG (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

bestdiabeticmealplans.com


Advertisement for diabetic meal product(s), not a reliable source, not useful for the encyclopedia as external link either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to SBL. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

ebolaoutbreakmap.com


Noticed at ANI, this looks like a permanent blacklist will achieve more than regular blocks. I see no good reason why this fringe website would be used as a reference. -- Luk  talk 12:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

*bng.com




Per their user page, they run all of these. Working on removing links now.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Anything against blacklisting  (that is, everything ending in bng.com, also those that are not above?).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't, but I didn't search for any collateral from a broad entry.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

wizcase




Studies on our site published by spammers in places that were not supposed to be published or not in the way we would like it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.149.207 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This domain is full of sponsored content, as it pairs low-quality articles with a gratuitous amount of affiliate marketing. —  Newslinger  talk   10:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , de-listing requests by site owners are generally not honoured. Wikipedia is not here to protect your site, and the blacklist only exists to protect Wikipedia.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree, this is not something we initiated or asked. Spammers/competitors seem to have done this to hurt our reputation here. We would be happy if you can take us out of the list. We will follow Wikipedia on a weekly basis to avoid such problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.149.207 (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * '.. this is not something we initiated or asked. Spammers/competitors seem to have done this ..' - that suggests that you had no control over this action happening, and that you have no way of stopping unwanted additions to Wikipedia.  And that means, that we still need to protect Wikipedia.  As seen from the reports (use of multiple usernames and IPs) the only way to stop this is to keep it on the blacklist.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to please have another chance for my site. This time it was not my fault. And I'll monitor things better from now on.


 * . No credible reason given for removal, spamming is acknowledged, there's no evidence this would be a credible source per our guidelines and we typically do not remove websites at the request of their owners, especially when the request clearly indicates an intent to try to get links on Wikipedia. --Guy (Help!) 13:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I received an alert from one of my tools that my website is mentioned on Wikipedia, I was very surprised and happy because it was not something we were doing. I was more surprised to discover that the site is blacklisted on something we didn't do. That's why I'm trying to write here and get second chance.
 * I think we understand your perspective. Now please understand ours: there is no reason within our normal procedures to even consider removing this. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, what's the solution of Wikipedia in this case?
 * No solution is needed, as there is no problem for Wikipedia to address. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Guy, what can I do?
 * Go about your business and forget about it. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I would like to know what can I do to get out this site of the list. This is not done by the team, this was done by competitors or spammers. Is there anything you can do/check to help me?
 * Guy already answered you. Go about your business and forget about it. From Wikipedia's perspective, there is no problem to solve. We don't de-list sites at the request of site owners, period. If a trusted, high-volume contributor requests that it be de-listed, we will consider it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

PV Magazine
As far as I can tell this site has been blacklisted since 2011. I have no connection to it and no vested interest. Occasionally I would like to cite their short articles so could they be removed from the list as perhaps they have served enough time there?

Chidgk1 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Check the archives: . There has been a lot of spam activity around this website. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , for specific links on this domain, but note that a lot of the material on this site is regurgitated (aggregated) from the original (basically this is a primary source for most information, it is almost exclusively scraping information from primary sources and rewrites it). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the first time I have requested a site removed from the blacklist. I looked at the link above but perhaps I am looking in the wrong place: so far I have not been able to find any spamming attempts regarding this site since 2011.


 * Regarding aggregating from the original: for example in the article I was going to cite they quoted "data published by Turkey’s Electricity Transmission Company (TEIAS)" regarding the permits TEIAS had issued but then commented critically on the TEIAS data that "there are relatively few such permits still active going into 2019." which presumably TEIAS did not write if they even issued a press release in English. So although it is true that they have used info from several sources in the article I feel they have done some useful synthesis and analysis.


 * I realise you guys are busy doing useful anti-spam work but would removing this site from the blacklist really risk a lot of spamming? I doubt many editors will spend time requesting whitelisting each time they wish to cite this site.Chidgk1 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You are asking for an article on pv-magazine, and now use a reference from 'finanznachrichten.de'. So there is an alternative to pv-magazine?  TEIAS may have that information still on the website, and I am not sure if pv-magazine's analysis 'there are relatively few such permits still active going into 2019' is reliable as most of the other information is scraped.  I can only assume that they did the proper research to make that statement.
 * Regarding that you did not find any spamming attempts - obvious, it is blacklisted.
 * Regarding 'risk of spam' - since it is blacklisted it is relatively difficult to see whether it is still spammed or not, which makes any evaluation on whether it is a risk or not rather difficult.
 * What we find is that generally people find other sources to back up their information, instead of whitelisting. De-blacklisting as a reason to avoid having to ask for whitelisting is a way of opening floodgates, and using that reason as a reason for a lack of whitelisting requests is negated by a lack of serious attempted additions on the other hand.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't we have some sort of query tool that shows logged attempts at spamming a particular blacklisted domain? I could swear somebody once mentioned such a thing. If not, it would be a useful thing to have. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of this tool, but if it exists (or when created) it should be built into our LinkSummary templates (the reverse, looking at attempts by editor is possible). IIRC, pv-magazine is part of a larger group of sites (check; clear COI-sockpuppet spamming), and we should consider to look for the other sites (if there are) as well in that query.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 'finanznachrichten.de' copied the article (with attribution) from 'pv-magazine'. Although TEIAS has English pages on its website unfortunately once one drills down through the English menus (for example the drop down "reports") the details are often only in Turkish. Although I could look for the data in Turkish and cite that if I found it I thought readers of English Wikipedia might prefer an English cite. I agree with your point that it is difficult to evaluate whether spamming would recur if the site was removed from the blacklist. So as I see that several others have requested its removal from the list and the editor has changed since 2011 might it be possible to delist it for, say, a few weeks and then review the situation? If spamming recurred it could easily be blacklisted again I presume. I realise this is extra work for you but after all it has been 8 years since the spamming occurred and PV is a very important subject. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * that the original text is only available in Turkish is not a reason not to use it as a source .. the point of verifiability is, IMHO, that the statements can be verified to a reliable source (depending on the type of info, preferably secondary but for certain material primary is fine). That a source is then behind a paywall, in Turkish, or only available as a book in a library in Tibet is not necessarily a problem: you can always ask someone who has paid/can translate/lives in Tibet to verify the information - that you cannot check the reference does not necessarily make a statement untrue.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

allbloggersden.com


Dead link spam for a product review blog. Continued after "only warning" - no encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

rkmissionbaranagar.org
Link sets off malicious website warnings. As discussed at User Talk:Gab4gab. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 15:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read Gab4Gab's talk page and respond to the help request there as well when actioning this report. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

bmihealthcare.co.uk


I was surprised to find this blocklisted, as BMI Healthcare is a reputable company that has been in business for many years. I wanted to add it as a citation at Milton Keynes. Looking back at the history, it was blocklisted in July 2015, as part of a sockpuppet investigation. It looks to me like collateral damage. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Promotional links for knee surgery and cancer surgery were systematically spammed by several Orangemoody-related accounts (see COIBot report). I don't see how blacklisting as a perfectly reasonable reaction to verifiable spamming during a massive coordinated campaign could be considered "collateral". The company might be reputable, but apparently the same can't be said about their PR department. But of course required specific source links for valid encyclopedic information can be whitelisted. GermanJoe (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SEO is not something that is only being done by shaggy people promoting viagra and pornography. Basically, all organisations in the world try to have their search results optimized so they appear in the top of relevant search engines.  As GermanJoe states, this was spammed by Orangemoody socks (link to report).  Really needed material will be whitelisted, but de-listing .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, that (SEO) is certainly true in general. Without doing a lot more work than it deserves, its application to this organization must remain an open question. I accept this ruling. I'm sure I can find a secondary source that shows that it exists, which is all I need really. I won't bother the whitelisters. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't worry to bother me, I whitelist (or decline ;-) ) using a script which makes the process rather painless. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

youcontrol.com.ua


WP:REFSPAMming. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist per . --Guy (Help!) 21:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

modernmogul.co.uk, southernbusinessreview.com, londonexaminer.co.uk, cloutbeat.com
This site contains numerous copyright violations. Links to this site would violate WP:ELNEVER, which prohibits links to copyright-infringing material. There is a discussion of this source at. —  Newslinger  talk   03:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The report on RSN mentions more sites, let us have a look at the person who is adding this:
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right. 's external links also include these domains: All of these domains contain scraped content from other sources. There are numerous errors on multiple pages, which strongly suggest that the sites were created hastily and that the content was generated automatically. Examples:
 * Errors on southernbusinessreview.com:
 * http://southernbusinessreview.com/ex-trump-lawyer-michael-cohens-testimony-postponed-before-house-intelligence-committee/
 * http://southernbusinessreview.com/disney-will-take-a-150-million-hit-to-stream-captain-marvel/
 * http://southernbusinessreview.com/stifel-adds-nearly-60-advisers-with-plans-for-more-as-it-eyes-3-3-billion-in-revenue/
 * The rest is from Reuters, and I doubt the site is properly licensed.

—  Newslinger  talk   15:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Every page of londonexaminer.co.uk has the text "page contents" at the top. The "Home" link at the top of every page links to londonexaminer.com, which is a totally different site that is "coming soon". Something is wrong with this site's scraping operation, since all of the articles I checked had no text content.
 * The cloutbeat.com domain is copying content from Metro:
 * http://cloutbeat.com/2019/02/09/from-withholding-sex-to-birthday-boob-jobs-why-erik-lee-from-netflixs-back-with-the-ex-is-beyond-toxic/ is from "From withholding sex to birthday boob jobs: Why Erik Lee from Netflix’s Back With The Ex is beyond toxic"
 * http://cloutbeat.com/2019/02/10/spike-lee-would-not-hire-liam-neeson-for-his-films-after-rape-revenge-remarks/ is from "Spike Lee would not hire Liam Neeson for his films after rape revenge remarks"
 * http://cloutbeat.com/2019/02/10/cameron-monaghan-reveals-he-wont-be-back-in-shameless-in-time-for-emmy-rossums-departure/ is from "Cameron Monaghan reveals he won’t be back in Shameless in time for Emmy Rossum’s departure"


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 21:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

mumbaikarboy.com


All recent edits spamming this site, broad range of IP addresses and no redeeming qualities.  Ravensfire  (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

list of pages containing blacklisted items
Is there a bot-maintained report of pages that currently contain blacklisted items? Or something similiar? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Cyberpower678's bot used to tag those pages with a template. I don't know if that is still being done (it was rather controversial, people don't like 'their' pages being tagged and prefer to hide-and-ignore).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thinking more like a daily report of what's currently blacklisted. If there's a category, that would work too. Maybe could adapt his bot and produce such a listing if that's no longer done? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sure. It needs a rewrite anyway. — CYBERPOWER  ( Be my Valentine ) 00:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * you can look at WP:JCW/POP or WP:JCW/CRAP for some inspiration. Like a sortable table, which can be sorted by 'popularity' and by domain, with links to articles (if few hits) or search links (if many hits). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It would be brilliant to have a last-hit and hit count table as well. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * note that the COIBot reports are containing the hit-data now as well (it is parsing the spamblacklists - a procedure that I need to work on when I have time as it is lagging the bot). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh! Must look. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * see addition 6 (Feb 5, 2019) in WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/open.online. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

poecurrency.shop


RMT site for in-game currency of the game Path of Exile. They have no encyclopaedic value as a citation and these site are against Term of use of the game. Matthew hk (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

wikifamous.com
A small nest of socks - cf Sockpuppet investigations/Williams taylor - adding links to this site via citations, which, as the name suggests, is not a reliable source. Likely to be more socks as times passes. No legitimate reasons I can think of to link to this commercial site. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 22:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Link spams in Housing in Hong Kong
Links spam in the article by separate users, seem websites competitive to each other but never heard (not the major real estate agent of HK, even they are, not appropriate as ext link). Not sure why restored it also. Matthew hk (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Despite it did have an article about Spacious, but not sure why the external link was spammed to Gherveh Spacious Mosque in the past. Matthew hk (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like I missed something, actually I rollbacked it from their contribution page, so missed that earlier addition. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to spam blacklist. I wonder if it is worth to have a filter that can detect resurrection of years old accounts (numedits < 25, last edit is more than 2 years ago).  On my way to WP:AF  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

mercola.com
This website promotes pseudoscientific and fringe theories about medicine and methods to encourage alternative medicine and cannot be used as a reliable source (see Joseph Mercola for more information about this pseudocientific). In addition, it includes drug advertising. I request its addition to the blacklist. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not a reliable source, but that is generally not a reason for blacklisting. And if websites were blacklisted for including drug advertising, we'd probably have almost nothing left.  Although there have been occassional attempts to use mercola.com as a reference, I'm not aware of any concerted effort at spamming;  and in article space it is currently only used at Joseph Mercola.  So I don't think there is really any problem that needs to be solved by blacklisting.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisting it would save me a lot of time - I have removed thousands of links to this site. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Mercola.com is pure shit. There's nothing worth citing to that source whatsover, save for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's an endless supply of websites that are pure shit, but we don't need to worry about them unless they are spammed here. If mercola.com has been added thousands of times recently, then clearly my statement above about no problem needing to be solved is wrong.  I used to see it appear on occasion, but can't recall seeing it any time recently.-- Ed (Edgar181) 00:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mercola.com is on XLinkBot's revert list. Does that not control the problem?  -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It reduces it, but it doesn't control it. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

To me a reason for blacklisting on basis of reliability seems a bit thin, there is not much community discussion at WP:RSN (4 discussions, last two not about the site in general). So either ee agree on that here, or in an extensive discussion on RSN. Another option is to establish significant abuse.

Re:'XLinkBot' .. it has been on there for over a year now, and here we have an independent report. It seems to be a problem, still. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

alexasetups.com
Spam only, no value as external link or reference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

nextincareer.com


Spammed to multiple articles by multiple IPs/users despite warnings. --Muhandes (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

analystz.hk


A website selling historical financial data and analyst tool, found spammed in HIBOR article. For historial rate of HIBOR, certainly there was better source available in the web. Matthew hk (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

intelligencenode.com


Repeated spamming for a retail software site by various IPs despite multiple warnings. No encyclopedic usage (aside from the company's main article). GermanJoe (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Everipedia (everipedia.org)


I'm surprised that external links to Everipedia are still allowed (beyond whitelisted pages), since it is a self-published source that exclusively consists of user-generated content. Everipedia is also a fork of Wikipedia, which makes it a circular source.

I've removed two promotional links to an Everipedia article (1 2). I don't see any valid use case for linking to Everipedia from Wikipedia articles, except in the Everipedia article itself.

Note that everipedia.com and everipedia.net both redirect to everipedia.org. —  Newslinger  talk   14:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, something should be done about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes for sure. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"CTI Reviews" / "Cram101" / "facts101"
These books such as this one are machine build from Wikipedia. They do not provide proper attribution much of the time either.

The issue is one of citogenesis. Working to remove these. Not sure if we have a way to blacklist them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just removed 40 or so instances of these sources being used. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"ezproxy."
Can we block ezprozy links? We have over a thousand used right now., see e.g. search-proquest-com.ezproxy.sl.nsw.gov.au/docview/157476108?accountid=13902

Generally they are added by students and one needs a library at the exact library in question to open. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of good faith additions that are unusable to anyone else., can you add this to the RBL? Or should we use an edit fulter? Guy (Help!) 20:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have an edit filter for these, set to warn and block. That is better, the we can explain what they have to do (custom warning).  I'll try to get you the number in an hour or so.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * added 'ezproxy.' to Special:AbuseFilter/892. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Beetstra Okay so should it be blocking edits like this than? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When they save they get an error message (MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-proxy-link). If they then choose to ignore, the edit will be blocked.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfect thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

mcaleadsworld.com


Spamming for a marketing site by 4+ dynamic IPs. No encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

docmanager.co.in - additional spam sites
Already blacklisted:

Additional blog spam to advertise docmanager software. Multiple previous warnings ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 10:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

informationcradle.com
This site uses scraped content from other sites. Links to this site would violate WP:ELNEVER, which prohibits links to copyright-infringing material. There is a discussion of this source at. —  Newslinger  talk   11:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the linked discussion, InformationCradle.com also copies or closely paraphrases Wikipedia content (without attribution), making it a circular source. —  Newslinger  talk   13:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting again because this section was due to be archived soon. If there's any more information required to process this request, I'll try to provide it. —  Newslinger  talk   13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

academic-accelerator.com
A bunch of IPs have been adding them as inappropriate refspam to academic journal articles. E.g.. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up all links, but this is ongoing, at a rate of 5-10/day, from multiple IPs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * . Guy (Help!) 19:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

mangatensei.com
This site is hosting pirated manga scanlations that was recently spammed by 139.195.190.69.-- 十八 12:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

petition.parliament.uk
I don't understand why the national government and parliament of the United Kingdom is blacklisted as a spam site, but when https://petition.parliament.uk or a link to a folder in it such as https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200968 is used as a reference then the blacklist warning appears.--BIL (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * because it (as most petition sites) its general use was for plain soapboxing ('vote for our good cause [here]'). Moreover, by far most of the use of petitions is as primary sourcing, and if something is relevant, then it is already substantially covered by secondary sourcing, making the need of the primary source often not needed.  Some exceptions do exist (sometimes an (open) petition is the subject of a page, sometimes the only way of showing primary information is by using the petition).  Those can be whitelisted, but expect to be able to show that the petition is worth mentioning in the first place (i.e., independent secondary sourcing exists).  De-listing is .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

docdroid.net
This is pretty much all copyright violating uploaded papers and "leaked" sources. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup. Systematic WP:LINKVIO - not strictly spam but can't be linked anywhere on Wikipedia so the blacklist is good for this purpose. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 21:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

taxattorneyoc.com


These two accounts and some others I reverted a while ago have been spamming this site.  Ravensfire  (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 08:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

academic-accelerator.com removal


I would like to request a whitelisting of this domain in wikipedia.org. This website aims to construct complete journal database to assist academics on manuscript submission. The website collects and provides many important journal metrics such as Impact Factor, Acceptance Rate, Journal Research Hotspot, Keywords Trend, Review Speed, Revision Process, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomlasers (talk • contribs)


 * To make edits like this ? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , bad faith request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC）

Dirk Beetstra I admit I did a stupid and wrong edit before. I won't do it again. Can you give me a chance? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomlasers (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . The alarming rate of spamming that domain supersedes a request to de-list so soon after blacklisting. What possible purpose would that link have? And what is your association with that domain? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

AnachronistThanks for your kindly reply. I agree your decision. I did a wrong thing so I don't have any excuse. I will focus on the website content. And I will apply delist in the near future. I will continue contributing wiki content related to journal pages with RIGHT way. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomlasers (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Predatory journals
I monitor additions of citations to predatory open access journals and other unreliable sources. There is an edit filter, but this does not seem to have meaningfully slowed the tide. Many are added by IPs that geolocate to the institutions of the study authors, others are added in good faith. A small number are very disreputable, associated with long-term WP:REFSPAM or other abuse.

I would like to consider blacklisting the following repeat offenders:
 * Academic Journals (a Nigerian mill churning out climate change denialism and other crap)
 * OMICS Group, all of whose employees are banned for spamming.
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral,
 * Scientific Research Publishing
 * Example spam:
 * Example spammer:
 * David Publishing:
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral,
 * Scientific Research Publishing
 * Example spam:
 * Example spammer:
 * David Publishing:
 * Example spam:
 * Example spammer:
 * David Publishing:
 * David Publishing:

At the very least these should be on the reference revert list, but actually they should just be blacklisted, they are a source of long term and ongoing abuse, especially OMICS. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blacklisting those. There are more, but those are bad. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note I've cleaned everything save for . There's just too many of them for me to do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up all the non-bio non-profile mainspace ones from that list (there were at least 30 of them) as well as from a few drafts. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * for future evidence, can you show some clearly COI addition diffs for each of these (I am sure we will get requests with 'this was not spammed, show me the abuse'). And in future, I would suggest that when you encounter the second COI editor who spams their own articles in a predatory journal to just blacklist the whole journal.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's not a two minute job, but I will collect it. You have to wade through past revisions, and in some cases weed out false positives. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't just COI though, it's often good faith additions because for FUTON effects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And I am sure have seen instances where an attempt to link by DOI was stopped by the edit filter and a URL substituted. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to the spam-blacklist and the reasons to blacklist, the issue mainly is 'abuse'. Good-faith additions do not count there (and I think the good-faith additions outnumber the bad ones).  My point therefore was to have some evidence of the abuse of each and have that documented properly.  That assists us in the defense of this decision, and for future cases we can point to this as in 'look, it is the same as there'.  Aligns a bit with the decision not to blacklist on 'it is not a reliable source in any form', except if there is a proper decision on WP:RSN, blacklisting the major porn sites, and blacklisting redirect sites on site (or even before that) because of past cases of abuse of similar.  None of these were 'spammed' in the classical sense, it is all stopping abuse (or gross misuse) there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, feel free to move to Special:AbuseFilter/891 or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not working, as the logs show. We would need to up it to enforce not warn I think. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Were those on the edit filter before? Because the edit filter seems mostly DOI based, rather than URL based. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Although personally for those, they're so bad that it's not a MDPI or Frontiers cases of well they're not across the board awful, so the blacklist is the best option. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I call intentionally citing ones' own work quickly 'abuse' (especially if that is the majority of ones' edits), which for a predatory open access journal is then quickly a reason to blacklist. Moreover, I would want to see how many of these would pass a serious RSN discussion regarding their general reliability ..
 * I would put all in the edit filter for detection (they are by definition questionable), and if there is any abuse, you document a handful of diffs/users, and blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

bestchange.com


I want this site to be removed from the blacklist. I don't really know the reason why it was blocked on English wikipedia. I tried searching the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log to know who blocked it and the reason but it appears the site is not even in the log yet it reports being blacklisted or blocked from English Wikipedia.

However, the info received from the bestchange.com company says that an unknown and inexperienced person started sharing bestchange.com affiliate link with 'referer' parameter all over Wikipedia hoping to get more funds from the company's affiliate programme. He or she hoped to get more traffic from the referred users. This resulted in bestchange.com getting blacklisted. The company has no hands in the spamming process. Uptill now, they don't know exactly who used the site on English Wikipedia.

Bestchange.com is a specialized online e-currency exchange service that monitors rates for dozens of popular conversion pairs in near real-time and offers one-click access to lists of reliable e-currency exchangers capable of helping users complete their transaction quickly and efficiently.

Please help me check the website and have it removed from the blacklist. Thanks Belmanga101 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you explain how such a website could be usefully used in sourcing a Wikipedia article? Also, I suspect you may need to read WP:COI. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . Not blacklisted here, but blacklisted globally. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * the user has lodged a request at meta, and I have instructed them to ask for a local whitelist. Personally I am not trusting the innocence of this request as this user does not even have any other edits xwiki, and no evidence of having an edit blocked for a blacklisted url. I can see evidence of three attempts to locally add the link in the past month. One is a referring url by 19th Feb, which is why the block occurred in the first place; the second on 22 Feb in the recently created article by  for the exchange and moved from a user's sandbox (note that translated from the Russian article, yet this editor has zero edits in ruWP), and a third attempt by  on 26 Feb, starting an article in user sandbox and abandoned. If I was making any decision, it would be if the BestChange article is legitimate that we whitelist the domain temporarily, add the homepage url, then remove from the whietlist. I see little other value for the domain.  The whole usage and request smells! — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note their affiliate program which decreases the desirability as being linked as a reliable source and the likelihood of good link addition. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * regarding the subject page url - we generally do NOT whitelist the top domain, but rather a neutral landing page, preferably a /about (see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests). That has proven safe as the /about page is generally not spammed further, and cannot be abused (as opposed to a whitelisted top domain link, or a top-level index.php).  (and I know only of 1 case of deliberate abuse through the /about ...).  Whitelisting and de-whitelisting results in cases where the blacklisted domain does pose problems (vandalism reverts).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, I was distracted. Please note the appellant's declaration of interest at their meta user page. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * formally:, for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

vouchercodes.co.uk


I'm trying to publish a page with links to this site on it, but keep getting blocked because it's similar to \bplusvouchercode\.co\.uk\b (this might be wrong, but I can't find any other reason that the page won't publish). Is it possible to remove the page in question from the English blacklist? Alternatively, is there a way for me to show that the link to vouchercodes.co.uk isn't spam and won't do any harm?

I'm trying to link out from Wikipedia to the site in question, which is a reputable online voucher publisher. I'm not sure why it's being blacklisted, but there's potential for a lot of internal linking in the finished article if I can get it published. Thanks Taylor VoucherCodes (talk)
 * - the site is blacklisted because Wikipedia as a general rule does not link to websites whose main function is to sell something; see WP:LINKSPAM. The main function of a "voucher codes" website is to drive traffic to retailers while generating advertising revenue for yourself; this is commercial activity and is not permitted on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)