MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2019

newspatrolling.com


Newspatrolling.com has been blacklisted on Wikipedia and it is harming our reputation in the market. We are not connected to newspatrolling links posted on Wiki and these have been done by people not known to us. Wikipedia is a public domain (one of the biggest, most reputed and social platform) and our name in blacklist is harming our business interests. How can we be held responsible for actions of people who we don't know? If anyone posting spam, then their accounts should be blocked. Adding Newspatrolling.com in blacklist is creating negative perceptions about the company. This may even be an attempt by our competitors to spoil our name among our business clients.

If you want, you can remove all newspatrolling.com links from Wikipedia. But, please, a humble request to remove Newspatrolling.com from blacklist, as it is causing irreparable loss to business reputation and that too without any of our fault.

I would again like to reiterate that we have nothing to do with links posted on Wiki. It has been done by unknown people and we do not wish to be blacklisted for their actions. You can remove all traces of newspatrolling from Wiki, but our name should be removed from blacklist page, as it is causing significant loss of business reputation
 * I can tell you right off the bat, as a non-administrator observation, that domains do not get removed from the blacklist as the result of a request by their owners. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 19:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * . What Jéské Couriano said. --Guy (Help!) 19:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * With about 40-50 IPs in several ranges spamming this site, it is clearly spammed. Editors have been sufficiently warned that this would happen, and apparently you have edited in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of use in adding a website that you are clearly involved with.  Wikipedia is NOT a place to promote your website.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

adultfriendfinder.network


Affiliate link for Adult FriendFinder that is often added to the article; I've also seen it on Wikidata and other Wikipedias. Trivialist (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

glamourcenterfolds.com
Porn Site RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 18:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per request at User_talk:208.107.143.166 RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 18:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

first2fitness.com
Spammed by Blacklisting this will probably impede half the spambots we currently get to see. — RainFall 08:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

dnbnumber.com

 * - added as also spammed by several of the above Guy (Help!) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - added as also spammed by several of the above Guy (Help!) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - added as also spammed by several of the above Guy (Help!) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - added as also spammed by several of the above Guy (Help!) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - added as also spammed by several of the above Guy (Help!) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - added as also spammed by several of the above Guy (Help!) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - added as also spammed by several of the above Guy (Help!) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - added as also spammed by several of the above Guy (Help!) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Persistent link spamming of Data Universal Numbering System with this unofficial (and unnecessary) website. Several more IPs and usernames could likely be harvested from that article's history. —johndburger 14:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy (Help!) 12:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

beacon.org
Hello, This is the first time I've encountered this issue with an E/L, so it was a real surprise to learn that the website for a major book publisher would be subject to a spam-block. I was trying to post a link for a new bio about writer Lorraine Hansberry in the Further reading section of her article. I sure would like to know what the reason is for the spam-listing, or was there perhaps a mistake. Thanks. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It certainly was not a mistake, this was spammed in 2012/2013 (and I read in a message that there were attempts also in the end of 2015). I am not sure yet if I am comfortable with wholesale removal, maybe a  is better.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (It may even go further back: Special:Contributions/BeaconP.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello again, thanks for the info. As I said, this is the first time I've encountered this issue when posting an E/L, so it's rather distressing (though not terribly surprising) to learn how big a problem spamming has become. Do you have any sense of who would have been responsible for the spamming? Also, are you aware of any other cases involving a major publishing house? Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone with the username of BeaconP is involved in edits to Beacon publisher, then that suggests a COI (or a nasty Joe Jobber, though it seems unlikely that this is a competitor here). Yes, these things do happen more often, SEO is a serious business making money for companies.  Companies either do it themselves, or hire external companies doing it for them.  And that includes respective companies as well as startups.  Most more respected companies do not come to Wikipedia (or their additions drown in the non-spammy ones ..), but some do.
 * I have whitelisted links before for this site - if an established editor needs one for a specific need (generally a reference) then that is often done. Though, often with publishers the links can be replaced by DOIs or ISBN (or similar) which are more generic, not favouring a specific reseller or publisher.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Much appreciated. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

militarytime.site
Spammed by the following, who have one edit each to add this site and no other edits at all: Going to the trouble to create a new user account for each edit suggest to me an automated system aimed at search engine optimization. The simplistic writing at the site suggest it may have been automatically generated. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The spammer is still at it:


 * Also, if this edit and this discussion Talk:24-hour clock is correct it is a copyright violation.


 * Time for an edit filter? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

high5test.com
Spammed twice in a row, from different IP addresses, to StrengthsFinder here and here, with the implication that it's the place to go to find StrengthsFinder, so it's almost certainly some combination of an unauthorized copy of it, a malware site, or something that's neither but, then, doesn't belong and is simply spam. Largoplazo (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

theappstore.in
Spammed by
 * and various 131.193.*.* IPs
 * and various 131.193.*.* IPs

Spamming for an Indian app store, continued after only warning (deleted, see history of user talk). The editor also sporadically spams other languages, but the current main focus is en-Wiki. No encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Coupon site spam


Repeated spamming for coupon sites by various IPs and single-usage accounts, continued after warnings and 1 block. No educational usage. GermanJoe (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

econlib.org
I'm baffled by why this site is blacklisted; it seems a high quality source of essays on economic topics, and has nicely edited copies of a large number of public domain economic texts having historical importance. My attention was drawn to this by the specific blacklisting of links to books and essays by William Stanley Jevons, a key figure in the nineteenth century marginalist revolution in economics.

18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certainpersons (talk • contribs)


 * See many previous discussions about this site, i.e. here. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I review links in batches. Every singe time I do this, I find that almost without exception they are replaceable with more neutral links to the same content - usually Gutenberg or even Wikisource. Then there's the spamming. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As per JzG, but than in a different order. This was spammed, people with a clear connection to the site (and related sites) were creating pages and spamming this site (and to top it off, there was a declaration that they were paid editors).  On top of that, except for the self-published Encyclopedia, almost all of the material they host is in the public domain.  That means that often even WikiSource has a copy available (in the case of s:Author:William Stanley Jevons, some of the material is), and that it is available in many libraries (from WikiSource most material is available in original form on archive.org).  For the few rare occasions where material on econlib is really unique, whitelisting will suffice.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

googletrendingnews.com
More Indian film site spam, this one with a name that would probably get google's attention. Spammed by only one user, and I suspect the IP's are also the same person. They've been warned and continued to spam and the IP edits make me suspect a user block won't stop this.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - already blocked for spamming this domain
 * - already blocked for spamming this domain
 * Also note that the person behind the website has a strikingly similar name (exact) to both blocked accounts.  Ravensfire  (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

dnbnumber.com problems
Hi there. Guy added dnbnumber dot com to the blacklist on March 6, and yet these two edits subsequently succeeded: Am I misunderstanding how the blacklist works? Thanks! —johndburger 22:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * March 7
 * March 9
 * The link already exists in the same paragraph. It therefore doesn't count as an added link, and I suspect that's the reason it didn't hit the blacklist. I thought the presence of a blacklisted link prevented a save, but that behaviour seems to have changed since I last looked at it. If it's a spam link, existing instances should be removed from the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it - thanks! —johndburger 05:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As Zzuuzz says. If the link is already there (i.e. if it duplicates) it does not trigger the blacklist.  Similar, if a blacklisted link is on the page it does not prohibit other edits.
 * As it is now blacklisted, all occurances should be either removed or whitelisted, as any edit damaging the link may result in problems later on. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * With the recent ongoing issues at Data Universal Numbering System maybe a short temporary semi-protection at WP:RfPP would be the better approach to discourage such link additions. Just a random thought though, up to you if you want to try this venue. With the mentioned technical limitations, blacklisting is kind of pointless in this case (unless all URL usages can be removed or whitelisted). GermanJoe (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At some point during the edit warring the spammer hijacked all of the references to point at their URL and nobody noticed. I've removed the spam site and restored the original refs. - MrOllie (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now the blacklist filter blocks new additions for the domain in this article (just tested). GermanJoe (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yah, I cleaned up one, but hadn't noticed all the others. Thanks all! —johndburger 12:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

YouTube trolling


I am not quite sure how to format this with templates, so here is the raw info:
 * Video link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1RqAHB0Jgw
 * Suggested regex (per previous similar entries in blacklist): \byoutube\.com\/watch\?v=i1RqAHB0Jgw\b

Repeated addition of a troll/fake video at List of esports games with dynamic IPs. 3 previous protections have been ineffective, maybe a blacklist is the better approach instead of locking the article even longer. GermanJoe (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)



Adapt and properly request regex. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I took the liberty to add the template info to Template:Spam-blacklist proposed additions. Otherwise I'll forget it again (in approx. 4-5 days). GermanJoe (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

mindmajix.com


Repeated spamming for an online training site and blog by single-purpose accounts and IPs, continued after multiple warnings (see linksearch results). No encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Advameg sites (city-data.com, filmreference.com, etc.)

 * Task: To disallow Main article space edits which include links to these sites, and particularly to prevent them from being used as references.
 * Reason: The Advameg sites listed below have been described in many prior discussions as a content farm primarily designed to bring visitors to advertisers. They are often brought to attention in spam reports, reliable sources discussions, and related to copyright violations. The data is not attributed to specific authors, there appears to be no editorial policy, and some data is user-generated - making them unreliable sources. In some cases, they should be considered WP:TERTIARY sources. Below is a (possibly incomplete) list of websites (taken from www.advameg.com/) which should be blocked, along with links to prior discussions involving them that I could find (feel free to add others). --Netoholic @  17:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Site list
• americanforeignrelations.com

• bankencyclopedia.com

• biologyreference.com

• chemistryexplained.com

• city-data.com

• currency-conversion.info

• deathreference.com

• discoveriesinmedicine.com

• drug-data.com

• everyculture.com

• faqs.org

• * faqs.org/allusions/

• * faqs.org/childhood/

• * faqs.org/collective-nouns/

• * faqs.org/espionage/

• * faqs.org/health/

• * faqs.org/health-encyc/

• * faqs.org/minorities/

• * faqs.org/nutrition/

• * faqs.org/ologies-isms

• * faqs.org/people-search/

• * faqs.org/sports-science/

• * faqs.org/time/

• fashionencyclopedia.com

• filmreference.com

• foodbycountry.com

• healthofchildren.com

• humanillnesses.com

• lovetheoutdoors.com

• * lovetheoutdoors.com/fly-fishing/

• madehow.com

• minddisorders.com

• musicbanter.com

• mythencyclopedia.com

• nationsencyclopedia.com

• newsearching.com

• nonprofitfacts.com

• notablebiographies.com

• patentsencyclopedia.com

• photo-dictionary.com

• pollutionissues.com

• presidentprofiles.com

• pressreference.com

• readabstracts.com

• referenceforbusiness.com

• scienceclarified.com

• shareranks.com

• siteencyclopedia.com

• surgeryencyclopedia.com

• thegardenhelper.com

• trademarkencyclopedia.com

• unexplainedstuff.com

• unit-conversion.info

• waterencyclopedia.com

• weatherexplained.com

• whatdoesthatmean.com

• * whatdoesthatmean.com/dictionary/

Example LinkSummaries
(others avoided for brevity)

Discussion
Moved this request from Edit filter/Requested/Archive_13. -- Netoholic @ 17:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Woohoo .. User:Netoholic, can you please look at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/12 .. that list corrolates to the list below. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

as above list dates back 12 years ago, and the people who were handling that at that time are not here anymore, maybe you can help to have a look? I will poke COIBot on the domains mentioned there, and below domains should generate reports now at well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Advameg sites - full set


As the request on the edit filter request page (mentioned above) was closed referring it back here, compiling here a full list for tracking and script-assisted blacklisting. Ping Netoholic. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Adsense and webbugs


For tracking this, these seem to be common on large subsets of these sites. This links back then to many other sites and cases as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 March 2019
Remove Breitbart.com from blacklist. Breitbart is a news website with a monthly readership of over 45 million people, and has been nationally recognized (and has had stories borrowed from) other media outlets including the NYT, Fox, CNN, etc. Furthermore, it does not engage in spam practices as described in the criteria for websites on this list. 18.40.120.193 (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

eatingtheroad.wordpress.com
self-publish source. Some entry, such as the webpage added to Stouffer's, was a copyvio copy of International Directory of Company Histories. Matthew hk (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

smultitechnologies.com


Links spammed by different IPs since November 2018. SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

moneysavingexpert.com
This is a reputable UK website dealing with consumer financial advice. There's nothing in the MoneySavingExpert.com article to suggest otherwise, so I've no idea why they've been blacklisted. Mspritch (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The original request is at . My concern was:
 * This site is primarily a collection of affiliate links and most of its pages are filled with sponsored content. I'm not opposed to whitelisting the  section of the site, although I still wouldn't consider it a reliable source. —  Newslinger   talk   16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . ~Anachronist (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . ~Anachronist (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , for specific links on this domain (from what I see, I would even oppose a blanket whitelisting of the /news part). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

https://tamilworlds.com/ambasamudram-ambani.html
This is being spammed to 40 or more Indian film articles in their reference section by  its a song download site that does not seem to verify anything, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

㥗釛.xsl.pt
Spammed by The first one redirects to the second one, which is of those "earn money fast" sites. — RainFall 07:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * the former is already on meta, I'll add the latter to the same section. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * now at Special:AbuseFilter/976 until other issues are resolved. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * meta spam blacklist has been fixed, it should now really be blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

marketsandmarkets.com
A market research company. Seems serious. Did not saw suspicious activity like a spam farm or something similar. Was refereed by Aviation Week, one of the two most prominent aviation publication (the other being flightglobal), with high standards. It seemed to be blacklisted as it was linked by a spammer in 2013 and agin in 2015 but I'm not sure he's still active.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

orgduns.com
Spammed by

This is a new domain for the already blacklisted dnbnumber.com. See further up the page: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2019
Remove the spurious unclosed bold from the line
 * — Anomalocaris (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it was an unopened bold, but you are right, I have removed it. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

parliament.uk
I'm trying to create a list of notable petitions for UK Parliament petitions website, but it says petition.parliament.uk is blocked. Why? It's a government website. Johndavies837 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Petitions, fundraisers and similar are blacklisted as they are mainly abused ('vote [here] to help our good cause') and do not serve any further use. They are at best a primary source, but should only be mentioned when there are secondary sources showing that they are notable (which almost always makes the primary source unnecessary).  To control the abuse those sites were blacklisted, and the ones to which we really need to link (which is rather minimal, it boils down to those specific ones which are notable in itself and an odd primary source) can be whitelisted (note that the bar will be extra high when the petitions are still open).  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Using links to news articles works fine for the most part. The only problem is that they often don't show the final number of signatures. Johndavies837 (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Betting spam
Other related sites with occasional spam:



A group of connected betting-related websites and blogs, promoted by the same spammer or group of spammers (see User:Bola88/sandbox (history)) and Special:Contributions/203.95.198.130 for the connection). The main issue is 7asiabet.com, but the sites are all maintained by the same entity and prone to recurring spam. Several blocks and warnings to single-purpose accounts and IPs. No educational usage. GermanJoe (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Update: still spamming as of 19 March. Please blacklist the whole bunch (all sites maintained by or connected to the same spammer/entity). Added 1 new URL and the most-recent dynamic IP. GermanJoe (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

gyangoggles.com
HI! I agree that I violated the rule of "no spamming" by Wikipedia but trust me it was unintentional. I run this blog to share tech news and reviews and to my best knowledge, I was referring to related topics. I assure you, I will avoid it and never ever put my site link. Please give me a chance. Thank you.
 * . If you will never again put your site link on Wikipedia, why are you requesting removal? Either way, the link won't get in. If a trusted, high-volume editor requests removal, we can consider it then. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir, I said that I will never use my site link in another context. If I find my site link relevant then only I will use it otherwise I won't. I didn't know that this type of linking is not allowed and many youtube videos suggest that putting site link in Wikipedia is good for SEO. Now that I know the rule I will never use a link which is not 100% relevant to the topic. Please give me last chance and remove my site from the block list. I will tell other people also to keep Wikipedia clean and not to spam it through a blog post. Thanks.
 * Sites aren't removed from the blacklist at the behest of their owners. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 23:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

ycdtotv.com
The official site for the cult television show You Can't Do That on Television. Very reputable resource, includes historical data, with sources, and direct interviews and features with cast and crew. It appears it was flagged for spam in June 2010 when the site was moving servers (various features were down for quite some time that summer, I recall). That said, the site has been back in good standing for several years now. It's not as active as it used to be, but still serves as a great resource for up to date information regarding the show and it's related media.--Theonewhoisseveral (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks like a fan site to me, not an official site. I don't see anything about being official on the front page of the site, and it is copyright 'The Slime Society', not any TV network or TV production company as I might expect. Also, the header states 'since 1995' when the show was cancelled in 1990. What makes you think this is an official site? - MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This was blacklisted in years ago because of spamming and likely copyright violations on the site. How has the situation changed since then?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

deepdotweb.info
Repeated spam additions. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

hackforums.net
To discourage actions such as this one, there's no reason this should be linked anyway. All links that appear today in Linksearch are a result of that vandalism. -- Luk  talk 15:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

DailyStormer.name


For reasons that should be blindingly obvious, there should never in the history of the planet be a reason for Wikipedia to link to the Daily Stormer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not seeing any valid use case for this domain beyond a link to the home page in the The Daily Stormer article. Any exceptions under WP:ABOUTSELF (if not excluded as undue weight) can be whitelisted. —  Newslinger  talk   21:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, though this may end up on meta at some point. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Nazi Germany SPS/fanboi sites


These three sites are basically SPS fanboi/user forum sites relating to Nazi Germany, and are regularly used to cite all sorts of major and minor things on a large number of articles. Currently, some editors (like me) do regular culls to remove these links, but a global approach seems to be in order. I asked about what to do about them at the Village pump (policy) page, and they directed me here. Perhaps an edit filter would be a better way of approaching this, but basically I think it would be in the interests of WP to stop people citing from them. How best to do that is the question. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not averse to either blacklisting or an edit filter, is there a discussion at WP:RSN on this? Guy (Help!) 07:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * feldgrau.com has been discussed long ago here, but do you think we'd need a RSN discussion before blacklisting/edit filtering? Or are we better off having that discussion here? I am happy to mount a case for each one as needed, I don't think it will be too difficult to show that they are not RS. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, for non-spammed links, we only look at technical controls once there is consensus that a site is not RS. A discussion at RSN is the best place, not least because it gets a lot more eyes than this page. I am sure it won't be hard to demonstrate non-RS, and at that point the next step would be to add tot he reference revert list and/or add an edit filter. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's good advice. I will create threads on RSN to discuss these websites, and then re-post with links once they resolve. Thanks, Guy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, that was inconclusive unfortunately, except that there seems to be a pretty clear consensus here that axishistory.com is unreliable and should not be used as a source. Could we talk about blacklisting it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do I sense a reluctance to blacklist these sorts of sites? Is this sort of thing not done? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support all per the RSN discussion. The utility of these links is negative. In addition, the pages where the links would likely be added are not frequently watched, so an auto-filter would be beneficial. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

qanon.pub
Repeated edit-warring by IPs and SPAs at QAnon. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 03:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Listed at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 04:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ at meta. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)