MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2019

spinninggrillers.com
Spammed by

IP hopping external link spam, primarily spinninggrillers.com at Shawarma. —Madrenergictalk 08:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 01:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

passada.com.au
Spammed by Because it's an IP user, I don't want to ask to have the IP blocked, and this is the address of a commercial dance school website that has been spammed (and refspammed) to a number of dance related articles sporadically since May 2017, up till today. Largoplazo (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 23:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

olagistng.com
recently spammed by and multiple SPAs in the past.

Continuous spamming of olagist.com since 2015 (song blog and downloads), the other two are more recent sister domains - currently all 3 domains are hosted on olagistng.com (per COI report). GermanJoe (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 23:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

cr2.co.in
Mirror site: Spammed by

Sister site of docmanager.co.in (already blacklisted on 3rd December, same software company behind them). Continuing spam for docManager software. GermanJoe (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

avpgalaxy.net
Fan site, user generated content, edit-warring to include in articles per. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist due to edit-warring to reintroduce. --Guy (Help!) 21:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

cc.com
Comedy Central admits refspamming their site for SEO purposes, described by an admiring fellow spammer here: https://neilpatel.com/blog/traffic-brand-new-site/. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

btcjua.com
Spammed by and some IPs.

Repeated spamming for a bitcoin site, deceptive editing. Only warning has been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

allsportsnewsbd.com
Spammed by

Isa (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I just removed one from ru and there's a bunch on fr. I'm not familiar with spam blacklists, should I move this request to the wikimedia-wide list? Isa (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * indeed, . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that was quick and efficient. Thanks! Isa (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

pediashot.com
Spammed by Blacklist please. —RainFall 05:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

15writers.com
Spammed by This domain hosts an essay-writing service with no encyclopedic value. I've removed all links to 15writers.com from articles. —  Newslinger  talk   15:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

articlebio.com


There is consensus on that ArticleBio is an unreliable source with incorrect information (possibly scraped), often mixing biographies and images of different people on the same page. Editors appear to be citing this domain in good faith, but nothing from ArticleBio is usable. I've removed all links to ArticleBio from articles. —  Newslinger  talk   02:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

crocels.com


Alternate domains for crocels.org, already blacklisted. One of these managed to get cited. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 13:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

wikifinancepedia.com
1. Website: wikifinancepedia 2. Reason: Our site is quite an older domain and have valuable articles. Many people trust wikifinancepedia for personal finance and financial planning. And the content does not violates any copyrights rule. 3. We have added information to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finance where the links were used. 4. At this point.

Our intention was to provide useful information But since it was considered as spamming then we will not add any further links to wikipedia. Appreciate all your efforts in advance. Thanks!


 * . You spammed the site. We typically don't accept removal requests from site owners who spammed their sites. --Guy (Help!) 15:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

ilyricshub.com


Being spammed by several IP addresses, not a reliable source and quite probably copyright issues.  Ravensfire  (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

moneyfree.co


No value, neither as reference nor as external link, forever, based on content and domain name itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 January 2019
Current text:
 * Log your addition. All additions to this blacklist MUST also be [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log logged here]

Requested text:
 * Log your addition. All additions to this blacklist MUST also be logged here

Changes link format from link to external link style to internal link style.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

fivebooks.com
I've run into this filter multiple times so finally decided to investigate. This site offers useful bibliographic and historiographic summaries of writings on scholarly topics. Not passing judgement on the site's editorial reliability, many of its pages would qualify as expert self-published sources or otherwise, as self-published interview sources. The site is partly expert interviews (baseurl + /experts/) and partly user-generated content. Obviously, the site shouldn't be used for the latter, but it is very useful for the former.

It was blacklisted in May 2011 for spammers adding external links for an early version of the site (see Internet Archive, whose link is blacklisted). Is there any evidence that those spammers are still around? Its inclusion on other WP blacklists appears to be a direct copy of our blacklist. It would be a shame to lose this site as a resource for whatever happened in 2011. (I'd sooner see any further spammers blocked than the site blacklisted.) This request is just for fivebooks.com, not five-books.com or thebrowser.com. (not watching, please )  czar  15:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments: fivebooks.com versus five-books.com. That can likely cause confusion. Apparently spammed. The user generated section is what shows up when the link is clicked. This can cause as much confusion as the close titles. The "about" sections states that "experts" are consulted and there is an expert section. I randomly chose Jon Burgerman that has a little information (there is a stub article on him) and he gives his five picks without any commentary. The Interviews with Ron Burgerman caption is followed by a link: [fivebooks.com/best-books/jon-burgerman-best-books-playful-children/ Jon Burgerman on the best Playful Books for Children] that is interesting and I would offer educational. I am not sure on a classification of all the "experts", there is a link to buy his "book", and also in the about section there is the statement "Five Books participates in the Amazon Associate program and earns money from qualifying purchases. Another "Expert" pick: Kiran Millwood Hargrave is fairly new to the children's books (2017) and even newer to adult books (2020).
 * On a quick look I would state the editorial aspect would need looking at, but the interviews do include at least some famous people that would be considered "experts" in their field and offer reviews and commentaries. [fivebooks.com/best-books/mia-farrow-on-changing-the-world-for-good/ Mia Farrow] gives an interview and discusses her five choices. I find these in-dept, to be more than "self-published", and the "bibliographic and historiographic summaries of writings on scholarly topics" could be useful. I can see how the site could be spammed but that is not the fault of the site. Unless someone knows or sees something that I missed I agree with User:Czar. Otr500 (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

At the time of blacklisting the three were very clearly related to each other (they were spammed into one article about the subject as 'sister sites'), and it was very clearly spammed (one of the 2 SPAs mentioned in the blacklisting clearly links everything together, and both were clearly spamming - very likely people with a conflict of interest).

Now I do agree that I don't see much spamming for quite some time (blacklisting seems to have gotten the message through in this case), and it may be worth another try with this site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I would hope someone would continue to watch as inundating Wikipedia with sites, as references or "External links", and even articles, has been an on-going issue and an "advertising" (spam) spot. It seems to me that if "money" is involved "someone" always tries to capitalize. I am confident there are still "people" around that may try to take advantage of it if allowed. Otr500 (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

AVPGalaxy.net
It has come to my attention that a particular longstanding reliable resource under the name of AVPGalaxy.net has been blacklisted under the charge of it consisting of "user-generated content" which to my understanding is false. The associated discussion on the topic has not even arrived at a conclusion and could not demonstrate any problem. - TurokSwe (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - fan sites with no indication of any editorial oversite or official affiliation to use as a primary source  WP:UNRELIABLE WP:FANSITE
 * Been blacklisted because of recent and past spamming ..ie..as seen here
 * --Moxy (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support - But it is an editorially controlled trusted source (as opposed to being controlled by its users, which can only engage within the limits of the site's associated forum) and have multiple times featured exclusive contents, interviews, and reliable news in relation to the Alien/Predator franchise and the cast and crew behind the scenes and have multiple times been in contact with the people behind the franchise and have multiple times been cited by the fanbase as a primary source of information relating to this franchise. Please do show me where exactly it has failed to meet the required expectations, as you keep avoiding this, making up false accusations, and still insisting that there's supposed to be an issue. I also don't understand what you mean by "spamming" in this case and what the issue is actually supposed to be, especially as various sites are consistently being repeated on the articles in question as well as countless others all around Wikipedia with no problem whatsoever. Still suspect that this has all got to do with some sort of bias towards anything AVP-related, judging from past experiences with this franchise and its fanbase, and I still hold that AVPGalaxy has been too quickly blacklisted without proper justification. - TurokSwe (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you were to read the links provided it would explain alot.....pls review WP:UNRELIABLE WP:FANSITE (#11). Just because your not willing to read the links doesn't mean we have not responded to your inquiries as this would be the 4th time the links have been provided.--Moxy (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read them, and repeatedly providing said links still don't really shed much light on things (in other words, they don't seem appropriate or justified here), but I've been asking for specific explanations. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments: @ User:TurokSwe: Words like "used as a primary source of information relating to this franchise" and "multiple times been cited by the fanbase as a primary source" are reasons for WP:FANSITE. Some of those "multiple people" may have "the franchise" more at interest than Wikipedia and "fanning the base". A "fan" may not realize or care how many times it becomes expedient to provide content they consider needing to provide the "primary source of information", and so the linking (spamming) cycle continues. If the site is allowed as a primary source on itself that does not mean that by making a reference to AVPGalaxy then a "self reference" claim can be used to advance the content on that particular page covering another subject. "IF" an editor decides to dig deeper those "fans" could come under scrutiny as not being here to build an encyclopedia. "IF" there is only a primary source then maybe there is not enough notability (outside a fanbase) to begin with. I didn't dig deep enough to ascertain a possible connection between the "fans", any ability to add to the site making it user-generated, and a level of over-site, but I am sure someone has/will, nor have I yet looked concerning unreliability as that would have previously been brought up. The burden to investigate why the site might now be reconsidered would be on you with evidence. Just requesting a delisting does not mean editors have to go back to the beginning and start from scratch to make a new determination. Many sites inundate Wikipedia and a lack of volunteer editors checking on this does not mean we can use other stuff as a reason we should just continue the status quo. I hope this has helped. Otr500 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

fintrx.com
Spammed by

Repeated spam for a fintech company from various IPs and a user, despite several warnings on IP talkpages and an attempt to explain the problem on the user's talkpage. More background details available per mail if needed for any admin. GermanJoe (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

mgsolution.info


Hijack the article China Development Bank and insert the link and info of his company. Matthew hk (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

lnnk.in


URL shortener used by namesbiography.com spammer.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Was already handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As always, thanks!  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

chartmasters.org


Heavily being added across all the music articles, this gross unreliable website has been deemed to be worthy of blacklisting per discussion at WP:RSN as seen here. Spam reports show mainly IP users and notorious spammer adding them across multiple articles. — IB [ Poke ] 21:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the tone of the WP:RSN discussion is similar to the discussion on fr.wikipedia. I am rather tempted to blacklist it there ... ?  (note, the editor mentioned has an admitted COI, and tends to edit war their links in).
 * Do you have any recent spammers of this? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (broke ping to user:IndianBio in previous edits). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, if I understand correctly, the metalink that you provided is where we can blacklist it correct? Regarding spammers, there was not any particular editor who spammed it recently, but a number of new editors and IP users had started adding it to the Lady Gaga articles, which is when I got interested. And backtracing I found it has been spammed hugely through the encyclopedia mainly by MJDangerous, who from the looks of it runs chartmasters.org. And this search shows me that multiple editors had already pointed out that it was a gross, unreliable source. Its just that no one had formally requested it for blacklisting. — IB [ Poke ] 16:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

yourstory.com
YourStory is a 10yr old media organization which showcases Indian startups and talks about government policies, women empowerment, business, investments. YourStory has a User Generated Content platform called MyStory but we moderate the content that goes up there. Plagiarism checks and authenticity is something we are very serious about and we also inform are readers when the content is user generated and not an editorial piece. We have helped the community in a number of ways and it makes no sense to keep the domain blacklisted. There has been no log as to why the domain was blacklisted in Oct of 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwizard.abhi (talk • contribs)


 * it was blacklisted because of spamming by editors with a conflict of interest, it is now twice requested to be removed by editors .. with a conflict of interest. If editors independent of the subject ask for de-listing then it will certainly be considered.  This request is .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

instafinancials.com
Spammed by SPAs (blocked): and 2-3 minor additions from other questionable accounts.

Systematic spamming and promotional editing for a fee-based business directory. Registered in 2015, there is no evidence that this is an established reliable source - no foreseeable encyclopedic usage (company-submitted profile info can and should be retrieved from official sites and acknowledged RS). GermanJoe (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 09:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

www.maketheswitch.com.au
Citation spam added indiscriminately to article leads:, , ,. I blocked the registered account for spamming a little while ago. Looking for a second opinion from an uninvolved admin on whether this is blacklist-worthy, but I suspect these IPs are block evasion to continue the spamming. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 20:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

logmeonce.com

 * Spamming by multiple single-purpose accounts, e.g.: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passphrase&diff=878920962&oldid=818378350, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Form_grabbing&diff=878921785&oldid=845026463, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_fraud_prevention&diff=878922187&oldid=857234723, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Open_Collaboration_Environment&diff=prev&oldid=878919640. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 23:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

online.citibank.co.in
This is the main official Citibank India Home Page, required for primary linking to its article Citibank India. Please whitelist. IncidentFlux [ TalkBack 15:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , not blacklisted --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

sarchnews.com


Site for downloading full versions of movies, these were all added today.  Ravensfire  (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

salamuzik.com
Spammed to multiple articles by multiple IPs despite warnings. Deli nk (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Another IP today:  Deli nk (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

indtoday.com
Fringe news site being spammed on multiple biography pages.--Xzinger (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you say fringe? this looks legit on the face of it. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fringe as in marginal, compared to the more popular India Today website.--Xzinger (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see about 70 uses in mainspace. Who is spamming this (asking since the bot did not create a report yet)?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Abdulqadeer007, he is at it since 2014.--Xzinger (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

voxbal.com / newstread.com
Spammed by and a few dubiuos SPAs.

SEO and blog spam by advertising-only account (second final warning given). GermanJoe (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * you may want to snowball this (or call user:MER-C for help). Use 'whatlinkshere' on the userpages and linksummaries, you can poke usersummary as well to get userreports).
 * Related:
 * links
 * SpiderG
 * users
 * I'm sure there is more. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There may be some significant cross-connections or these are simply various SEOs using the same crappy ressources. But I am really not that good/experienced in evaluating more complex schemes and professional larger spammer groups (and lack eventual admin details from deleted data and blocks). would you mind taking a look please? Of course I'll help whereever possible. GermanJoe (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is more. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There may be some significant cross-connections or these are simply various SEOs using the same crappy ressources. But I am really not that good/experienced in evaluating more complex schemes and professional larger spammer groups (and lack eventual admin details from deleted data and blocks). would you mind taking a look please? Of course I'll help whereever possible. GermanJoe (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is more. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There may be some significant cross-connections or these are simply various SEOs using the same crappy ressources. But I am really not that good/experienced in evaluating more complex schemes and professional larger spammer groups (and lack eventual admin details from deleted data and blocks). would you mind taking a look please? Of course I'll help whereever possible. GermanJoe (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There may be some significant cross-connections or these are simply various SEOs using the same crappy ressources. But I am really not that good/experienced in evaluating more complex schemes and professional larger spammer groups (and lack eventual admin details from deleted data and blocks). would you mind taking a look please? Of course I'll help whereever possible. GermanJoe (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)



+1. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)



+3 - These 3 may or may not be related, but there is a noticeable overlap in IT-related product and company articles with the previous spammers. Found them while checking Redmi with voxbal.blogspot.com spam. Either way, additional spam domains worth checking (the latter two still active). GermanJoe (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, moving house this weekend, not really available until Tuesday. MER-C 21:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No worries, for now I have cleaned up all involved domains (as listed so far) and created a few more COIBot reports. GermanJoe (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

scoopearth.com


Spammed by various dynamic IPs and misused for COI-editing. A new PR platform for startups with user-submitted stories - no encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

.guru TLD


I am the creator of the soaring weather forecast site www.meteo.guru and when trying to add a link to it on my own user page, I was very surprised to find out that the whole .guru TLD was blacklisted. I can definitely live without having that link, but I was just curious what was the rationale for blacklisting a whole TLD? Especially since I decided to host my site in it. Mmom (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * at the time of blacklisting the number of spammed websites with a .guru tld by far outnumbered the 1 or 2 useful sites on that tld that were there. The ones that are of use to content of Wikipedia are whitelisted, and that has only shown needed a couple of times since blacklisting.  At the moment, I don't think this should be delisted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * for consideration of whitelisting specific pages, not the whole TLD. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

econlib.org
This is a well-known site on economics and is full of useful content on economics, including the Concise Encylopedia of Economics. The CEE has contributions from respected economists, some of whom are Nobel Prize Winners, and is a go-to reference for many topics.

The site's "About us" page has an overview of the site's resources.

It appears that this link was caught up in a sweep of links to immigration legal services sites that were added by User:Vipul. This site is not about immigration (it does have articles on the economics of immigration) and doesn't offer legal services.

This is my first Wikipedia edit, so I'm not an expert on the tools that Wikipedia uses to detect link spam, but I did scan the English linksearch and it looks reasonable to me. I discovered that this link was blacklisted while reading Direct tax. The use there seems on-topic.

Glenn.ammons (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , much of the material is replaceable (and other parts cab be whitelisted). No, it is not 'caught up', it was part of the paid-editing scheme (or at least obviously too close for comfort, Vipul has a conflict of interest here).   for specific links for a specific use where can be shown that there is no replacement possible. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What Beetstra said. Also bear in mind that it's run by a libertarian think-tank so not a reliable source in general. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , the reason for addition of any website to the spam blacklist is that the website is being repeatedly and inappropriately inserted over multiple articles; it is my understanding that that case was made at the time this site was blacklisted. It has nothing to do with whether the website is run by a libertarian think-tank any more than it if it was run by a liberal think-tank, and it is inappropriate to imply that Wikipedia blacklists websites because of their political leanings. I have a great deal of difficulty thinking of *any* reference source we use on this project that is truly neutral and has no "leanings" in any direction. This list isn't for reference sources that have political leanings - it is for websites that are being spammed onto Wikipedia. Please reconsider your words.  Risker (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you both should defer to an independent review of your decisions to blacklist/maintain blacklisting of this domain. This is the standard I would expect of administrators. It would be unacceptable for the administrator who deleted an article to also close the deletion review, and it is no more appropriate for the administrator who has already refused on more than one occasion to delist a domain to be the one assessing a new request. Let someone else render the decision here, and they should look at the multiple discussions of this domain, which go back to March 2017 (I counted and read at least five). Risker (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree that that would be better ... but by now you would have run out of knowledgeable editors to review these cases and hence nothing would be done. Or a neutral suggestion to decline (a !vote, if you wish) will have the same result, nothing will be done.  Thirdly, if you block an editor you either have to give blanket permission to unblock any editor you block, or you should be consulted before I unblock said editor.
 * Point is, that spam where there is a link to paid editing should never be removed (I can show you cases where editors are spamming for timespans of 10 years, they will continue, it pays there bills, they were here to pay their bills in the first place). I understand your touching on WP:INVOLVED, my defense basically is that removal will almost surely result in reoccurance of damage to Wikipedia and that therefore 'action' is allowed (WP:SNOW and such)  Next, a  is not a closure of the discussion (as you see here; these discussions are not really closed, people can come with counterarguments), other admins can review and override.  (this noot really the place for this discussion).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What we know for certain is that if it was removed from the blacklist, the link stuffing would resume. It was spammed, but in addition to being spammed it was also widely abused by POV-pushers, using it as a "source" for out of copyright materials, which are hosted there with a wrapper of libertarian propaganda. Our articles on economics have serious problems of ideological warfare, and this site was one of the weapons in that war, along with excessive citations to minor far-right economists as if their opinion were objective fact, and the like. Blacklisting was righteous due to spamming. Removal form the blacklist will degrade Wikipedia for other reasons, not just spamming. And to be clear, the same applies to far left think-tanks as well (there was a Marxist equivalent also spammed, which I cleaned out).
 * This blacklist discussion is for abuse, and includes the citation blacklist, which absolutely is used for non-spam abuse. But I do feel that the term "spam blacklist" is a problem - it is a technical measure we can use to control abuse, inclusion on the list actually offends some site owners who are otherwise understanding about being on the list - if they did not spam the link they accept our decision but are unhappy with being identified as spammers. I think our use of blacklists should be subject to a wider discussion, and I would not be opposed to some sites (including this one) being moved to edit filters instead, but I don't know how expensive that is. There's virtually no review of existing blacklisted sites and it is entirely possible that great swathes of the blacklist might be redundant by now. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note1: renaming of this page to a more applicable name (as well as converting to a more fine-grained system) is an open ticket on Phabricator for years (dating well into the Bugzilla time) (by the way, it is a simple config change ...). There is a lot of material on these lists that have never been spammed/COI-added (and hence is not spam by any of Wikipedia's definition), but are subject to continuous (attempts to) abuse up to a level that the only solution is blacklisting (this page is not one of those).
 * Note2: on meta, a regular cleanup is performed - anything that has not been attempted to be added on any wiki and is not a standard term/redirect site is purged. I think that we could do a similar exercise here on sites which have not been attempts to addition in the last 5 years, or for which we cannot find suspect additions in the last 3 years could be removed (I personally tend to be lenient on those, even while knowing that some organisations have been spamming us for years).
 * And Note3: Except for the self-published Encyclopedia, practically ALL of the work that they host is in the public domain, and much of it is available in full text on wikisource and/or available in full text on the website of any major library (public libraries, university libraries). The Encyclopedia has been whitelisted, for all other work, until now, we have found alternatives - exact copies (I will leave it up to others to perform the exercise of why econlib is high on the Google ranking when looking for full texts of old economic works).  At that point, it becomes a calculation of risk: we know that the material is largely replaceable, so do we open up this website again so that people can link to this specific copy of the high-ranking work but where we know that people closely related with the website (and who are admitted editors who create articles for payment) can come back and continue/restart the promotion (they were paid to edit - it pays their bills) vs. pointing users to (and/or helping them find) the existing alternatives for the source (and if that really does not exist, whitelist that specific document).  Seen the continuous uncontrolled influx of spam I prefer to keep old spammers at bay (with an occasional (and in my case generally prompt) action in cases of whitelisting requests) and clear/stop out the current influx, vs. having to loose time on cleanup of this site ánd the current influx (and knowing that we can't blacklist the stuff again, whatever the abuse).  When we get a significant influx of people helping to clear out the current influx of spam so we have at least a feeling of status quo, then we can entertain to de-list some of the sites.  Until then: here you have one editor with EXACTLY ONE edit who requests, the advice of 2 experienced editors (especially in this field) to not de-list, do you really think we should go on with a !vote?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

cn.qihua.host

 * Spamming by multiple single-purpose accounts, e.g.: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alibaba_Group&diff=prev&oldid=881096395, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangkok&diff=881087164&oldid=880994168, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology&diff=881094992&oldid=881076449, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XVideos&diff=881097712&oldid=881097507. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

antrukandamugam.wordpress.com

 * A non-reliable wordpress blog that has been placed in numerous articles in Wikipedia. Manually removing them now. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)