Select Page

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. For a description of the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. For instructions on administering the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 1287109277 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions


    pathshalahub.com

    Persistent spamming, see [1]. Annh07 (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to spam blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    May need to also block pathshalahub.in after this edit, the user then tried to remove this report. Sigh, I know spammers aren't the smartest chips off the block, but that they really think edits like that will do anything productive for them? Ah well, good laugh for the day! Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also some cross-wiki spamming by the editors listed in the report and Hubpathshala (who did the actions I mentioned). Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Requested for global blacklist. Annh07 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    gdgoenkavns.com

    All four of these users have been attempting to make sandbox or draft articles about a school called G.D. Goenka School Varanasi and attempting to advertise it, posting this link every time they do as well. These accounts might be related and there is an active sockpuppet investigation into this, though blacklisting the website may help prevent them from continuing this behavior if it is in fact a case of socking. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 22:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    magistvhub.app

    On Magic (TV channel), repeatedly added [2] [3] [4] yesterday by the account (that was also refspamming other similar sites on other articles), then added again [5] this morning by the IP. As usual with refspam, it's slipping under the radar for Recent Changes patrollers. The named account is probably also one-off spammer Fleminkimm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is continuing adding this site at TV Guide – [6]. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Added again, twice [7] [8], by Harrymili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). 81.2.123.64 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    evergreenpharmacenter.com

    Persistent spamming by multiple IPs. Annh07 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Annh07: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    puffcitybuddlake.com

    puffcitybuddlake.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    --Wotheina (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist, and a few ranges/accounts blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    circleout.ae

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts. Annh07 (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    netmirrors.app: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    alightmotionproapks.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    codexexecutor.online: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    castleapp.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    spotiwap.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    mamc.ae: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    healthmateandcare.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    103.203.45.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
    More garbage from the same spammers who won't give up on trying to spam magistvhub. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Intellipaat

    Link

    Recent activity:

    Previously tagged users: [9]

    Long term spamming, please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, added to blocked domains. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    lodgingcompany.com

    Simply a low-value WP:QS travel agency website that has been spammed into several languages of Wikipedia by one spammer. The offending user has been globally locked, but it took a lot of time to clean up the wake they left behind. The source is a travel agency website which stands to profit from search ranking gain and booking made by people visiting the linked reference and booking a travel. So, there's really no value in having it available to be used in the future and I suggest that it be spam blocked. https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/by-domain?q=lodgingcompany.com Graywalls (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Graywalls:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the spamcheck link, looks like it's already globally blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohnoitsjamie yep. I submitted the request on your referral. Graywalls (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    infinity-group.in

    This has been a long-term spam issue with a large number of accounts and possibly IPs (there’s probably some that I’ve missed). I remembered seeing this link being spammed a little while back, and it came across my page again tonight while I was patrolling the abuse filter log and I recognized it. These users target car articles, specifically BMW-related cars generally, and post this link on several different articles. The link itself appears to be a luxury car dealer located in India. I thought about making an SPI given the number of accounts I saw posting this link, but I figured this would be more logical given that most of the other accounts (with the exception of KnowledgeByAmol and VinayG.Editor, who I both saw post it tonight), have gone stale and not edited in a few months. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 06:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. Bonus: added a few senate-marketing links as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    championkilts.com

    This user has done literally nothing at WP except attempt to use it as a spam vehicle for this Pakistan-based, pseudo-Scottish junkware website.

    • 08:30, 14 December 2024 - Attempted to hijack the WP:URLs shortcut as an advert [10].
    • 08:31, 14 December 2024 – Given an "only warning" for spamming [11], which should already have been acted upon.
    • 16:57–17:06, 16 December 2024 – Did it again anyway: attempted to draft a spam article in sandbox and get it accepted by WP:AFC (it was not, of course) [12].
      • That page still exists as raw spam and should be deleted. I've put a {{Db-g11}} on it.
    • 21:34, 25 March 2025 – Bided some time and did it yet again: tried (code-incompetently) to hijack an internal wikilink to go to his spam venue [13].
    • 21:36, 25 March 2025 – Warned against spamming again, despite finality of original warning [14].
    • 21:37, 25 March 2025 – Attempts to enlist help from others in getting what he wants [15].
    • 21:47, 25 March 2025 – WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:NOTHERE: makes it clear his sole purpose for being here is injecting spam for his website [16].

    There is zero content at that site that could be used as a reliable source for anything, so it should just be banned, and the user indefinitely blocked as worse than unconstructive.

    The only shred of mitigation is this claim (22:35, 25 March 2025) to finally understand [17]. But after this much "stop spamming" feedback, and the single-purpose nature of this activitity, I don't buy it. It belatedly occurs to be that the Scottish Gaelic and Scots language Wikipedia might also have been hit with this, though the main market for these sorts of machine-runoff acrylic-fibre "kilts" and faux-Highland doodads is of course Americans. I don't find this username at gd.wikipedia, sco.wikipedia, or ur.wikipedia, but could easily be using different accounts. Edit: Yep, same spam from user Utilitykiltsformen at simple.wikipedia [18]. I'm not sure how to file a spam report over there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef as spam-only account; as far as blacklisting,  Defer to Global blacklist given the cross-wiki spamming. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    riverfronttimes.com

    riverfronttimes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    The Riverfront Times article here on WP offers a good summary about what has been going on at this once-legitimate publication; it was bought out by a new owner and all the staff were laid off. All new articles on the website are AI-generated articles about cannabis or OnlyFans creators.

    St. Louis Public Radio traced the new ownership to a OnlyFans marketing company in Texas: https://www.stlpr.org/economy-business/2024-09-24/st-louis-riverfront-times-owner-rsc-ventures-onlyfans-onlyfinder

    This is from a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sophie_Rain, where user Launchballer wanted to know about the veracity of various sources for an article they were making on an OnlyFans creator.

    The main thing I am worried about is the archived material that is still available on the site from when it was not owned by a content farm. What would be the best way to deal with that?

    There are also other alt-weeklies that have switched to publishing such content, like the Village Voice, LA Weekly, and the Detroit Metro Times. I only listed Riverfront Times here because I don't know if I can list multiple sites to be blacklisted. wizzito | say hello! 21:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant article by WIRED magazine about this phenomena: https://www.wired.com/story/zombie-alt-weeklies-are-stuffed-with-ai-slop-about-onlyfans/ wizzito | say hello! 21:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ​The site's new AI-generated content about cannabis and OnlyFans performers does not have any valid use case on Wikipedia. However, because there does not appear to be a way to construct a spam blacklist filter to target only the newer problematic articles while excluding the Riverfront Times's older articles, I recommend starting a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine whether any action should be taken on the entire riverfronttimes.com HTTPS links HTTP links domain.
    It is possible to request for multiple domains to be added to the spam blacklist at once, although a review of the Village Voice, LA Weekly, and Metro Times home pages does not reveal any obvious problems that would justify blacklisting those entire domains. — Newslinger talk 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Will do. wizzito | say hello! 23:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    chinarecipes.com

    chinarecipes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Picked off a sock group spamming this domain along with one or two others originating with the originally blocked account Xiaoweilove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). I'm not usually around these parts so feel free to do as you will. :D --Izno (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    askmidinsurance.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    parivahansewas.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    gstcalculatorr.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    ssoid.net.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    meebhoomii.net.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Same spammers as now blocked upscalculator.net. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pravda network

    As noted in the latest Signpost edition, the Russian disinformation Pravda network (also known as Portal Kombat) has been creating fake news websites used for citations on Wikipedia per Digital Forensic Research Lab. The lab mentioned the following sites, which should probably be added to the spam blacklist:

    crimea-news.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    ulyanovsk-news.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    rostov-news.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    topnews.cn.ua: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    topnews.ck.ua: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    uanews.odessa.ua: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    uanews.zp.ua: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    uanews.kharkiv.ua: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    uanews.lviv.ua: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    - Amigao (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Amigao: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some existing links that should be cleaned up. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    8mbetscasinobd.com & 8mbetscasinonp.com

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts. Annh07 (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done; added to domain block list. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    nfhsnetwork.com removal

    Please unban nfhsnetwork.com It is one of the only resources I have to cite rivalries for private school rivalries in Memphis and if I don't cite them they will be removed again. I can't take this anymore and Wikipedia will have me in a casket if they don't fix this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzlessportsmatrix (talk • contribs)

    kibrit.com.tr

    we have been working/creating 3d animation since 2006 for engineers. there is no fake/spam information on this website at all. Could you please remove from Spam/backlist this website. Sincerely.

    information Administrator note: user has been blocked. --Kinu t/c 22:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    omm.guru

    I recently bought this domain for blogging on 'Hindu Religion'. Previously this domain was in spam activities I was unaware about that. This is real and non spammer site actually. community can visit and confirm that this is not spammy site. So i request from my heart to remove this from spam list as it contains many valuable facts and information on aspects of hindu dharma.

     Not done Your site would not qualify as a reliable source, and as such has no current use on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined, the .guru TLD is blanket blacklisted.  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this TLD where linking has merit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Econlib

    I'm not sure why Econlib is blacklisted; it's a decent source (plenty of economics professors blogging there, which means per WP:SPS it can be used in some situations with care). It also has a repository of old texts in economics. Can it be removed?– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Closed Limelike Curves It was blacklisted because it was spammed. The material that is unique is covered under a whitelist rule, most, if not all, of the rest is available from more generic sources (or just cite the original). Dirk Beetstra T C 15:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, the fact that it was spammed is not an accident. I believe it was built for that very purpose. It collects together mainly public domain resources, brands them, wraps around them with libertarian propaganda, and then pretends to be some neutral library of economic thought.
    It is part of the exceptionally well-funded libertarian think tank network that brings you such delights as the Heritage Foundation (Project 2025) and American Enterprise Institute (Great Barrington Press release). It is there to proselytize, not to inform. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    verywellmind

    VeryWell Mind is a reliable source, rating high in the fact check website (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/verywell-mind-bias/) as "pro-science". The original talk page that blocked it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=871713926#verywellmind.com) has stated the following reason: "they are being added to pages by students and people new to editing about health. It would be better if people didn't use them... but that is not what this list is for." Any newcomer who uses a reliable source, regardless of their own knowledge, should have that source be accepted into Wikipedia. They also never exactly stated a reason as to why the website is bad. They list 4 spammers who have used it, but 2 of those spammers are sockpuppets of the original, essentially putting the number down to 2 spammers. That amount of people is not enough for the entire website to be globally blacklisted. An argument can be made that "better sources" could be used, but a "better source" does not necessitate that an "inferior" but still reliable source cannot be used. --Senomo Drines (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This organization also has its own Wikipedia page. It has no controversies and was ranked in the top 10 of health information sites in March 2017. It ended up getting in the blacklist in 2018, and I highly doubt that any spammer is still active using it as a source nearly 7 years later. Senomo Drines (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well would you look at that, there was already a discussion on this topic 5 years ago. The whole thing is quite lengthy and it seems as though the reason for the website's blacklist is a lot more convoluted than it seems. Senomo Drines (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On behalf of the person who began the original discussion, I will ping them to notify them on this proposal. @Manifestation
    The discussion continues in an archived spam-blacklist page. It seems as though the topic ended there, and the site was unsuccessful in getting taken out of blacklist.
    The whitelist, in my opinion, does not have anything to do with it. It doesn't change the fact that the spam that occurred was lackluster and happened several years ago. The website itself lists sources unrelated to Wikipedia in many of its articles, and the extent to which About.com has mirrored and imported its information to Verywell is inconclusive. Senomo Drines (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, gfl with this request. Last time I tried to get the site a sister site from the same publisher un-blacklisted, I was met with answers from admins like "the site is not in compliance with WP:MEDRS" (in fact it is), or "this site offers nothing unique, we should only unblacklist it if it's the only place to get some information" (can't find anything remotely along those lines in WP:RS), and my favorite "lots of people have expressed initial skepticism but haven't actually engaged much in discussion after further points are raised - but since there's so many of them, we can't get consensus here." It was the stupidest ~3 weeks I've ever spent on this site.
    Feel free to give that thread a read, if you want to spare yourself some trouble trying to get this site - which was originally blacklisted on the thinnest of reasonings, and has no business remaining blacklisted according to all published documentation on what blacklisting is for - whitelisted again. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried consulting arbitration or anything of that kind? If you think the admins here aren't gonna listen, then get a third-party that isn't involved to overlook the whole case, although I doubt they would take the time for something like this. Senomo Drines (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I don't think something like this isn't under the scope of Arbcom. Admins are pretty much the only people around here who work noticeboards like this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A supposed source for content on mental health that has, on its front page today, How Mercury Retrograde Will Affect You This Year and I Tried Lion's Mane for a Month—Here’s What It Did for My Mental Health, "medically" reviewed by Alice Bigelow ND1? Nope. Not a MEDRS, not even a RS for woo, due to its utterly credulous coverage. Even if it weren't blacklisted, it would be worthless as a source. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1ND = Not a Doctor Guy (help! - typo?) 08:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not as familiar with verywellmind - my request was actually related to a single article from verywellhealth. But your characterization of this site seems needlessly antagonistic, and full of your personal biases.
    How Mercury Retrograde Will Affect You This Year Let's look deeper than the WP:HEADLINE, and see what's actually in this article:
    • "Can Planetary Alignment Affect Mental Health? Ultimately, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that planetary alignment has any direct impact on mental health."
    • "What to Do If Mercury Retrograde Is Stressing You Out If you find yourself feeling overwhelmed or stressed due to Mercury retrograde, it is important to remember that the planet's position does not dictate your emotional state."
    • "Don't Let Astrological Concerns Run Your Life Some people may use Mercury in retrograde as shorthand to explain away behavior that could be better explained by other things. For example, the thought "Mercury is in retrograde, I'm going to be useless today." This type of thinking could lead to further feelings of defeat and unproductivity, while in reality, it is the individual's response to small obstacles that determine the outcome.
    Oh hey, they're using astrology as a pretense to get people to read an article on practicing mental health strategies. The pinnacle of reliable source practices? Maybe not. Utter astrological slop? Hardly.
    Not to mention, this article is written by Arlin Cuncic, with a master's degree in clinical psychology, and reviewed by a doctor, Rachel Goldman, PhD of Clinical Psychology. I know nothing about these two personally, but they have some credentials to be speaking on the topic of mental health. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    off-topic discussion
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    VerywellMind.com, VerywellHealth.com, and VerywellFamily.com are not spam-sites. Not in a hundred years. Therefore, they shouldn't be on the spam-blacklist. The two admins responsible for their banning, JzG and Beetstra, personally dislike the VeryWell sites and want to keep them banned. When I confronted them about it, they lied their asses off and used their political power to snooker me into a 1-week block. They send another admin after me, who intimidated me (1, 2) and threatened to block me indefinitely if I didn't drop the issue.
    The "Dotdash Meredith" entry at WP:RSPSS says that VeryWell was banned "[d]ue to persistent abuse". It is not explained how, exactly, you can 'abuse' a website on Wikipedia.
    The VeryWell site were never abused, let alone in a persistent way. And even if they were, that means the abusers should be banned, not the sites. - Manifestation (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do agree that calling someone "stupid" (with the fact that you never directly called them that) was not sufficient grounds for a 1 week block. On the contrary, I think the one who issued the block used that as a half-baked excuse to exercise the block, listing WP:CIVILITY without explanation, which falls in line to someone with cognitive dissonance.
    If anybody could offer a more specific explanation as to what the entry at WP:RSPSS is describing, that would be preferable. Until then, I don't see a sufficient answer as to why it should stay blacklisted. Senomo Drines (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Senomo Drines: Well, I *did* directly call people stupid and moronic, because they acted stupid and moronic during this discussion. It was about a VeryWell article on myolysis, which for some reason has since been deleted, but the page is archived at the Wayback Machine. User:PhotogenicScientist wanted to cite that piece in the Wikipedia article he wrote about it.
    Some users then suggested the Verywell source be replaced by other sources, oblivious to the fact that Verywell should never have been banned in the first place. So the whole whitelisting discussion was nonsensical to begin with.
    JzG lied and said that the site was spammed (it wasn't), that it's not reliable (it is), and that its primary use was the sale of products (not true). JzG also claimed that the site uses AI-generated content, a claim that can of course neither be verified nor falsified (see the diffs here: 1, 2).
    So that's why I got angry. I got warned, and then I got blocked. JzG and Beetstra, the lying administrators, were not warned, let alone blocked. And Verywell remains on the blacklist to this day. - Manifestation (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating exactly the same stuff that got you blocked last time would seem to be a poor idea. MrOllie (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: What have I done wrong? - Manifestation (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijacked this discussion with personal attacks - a policy violation in itself, but also ensuring that no one will take this request seriously. MrOllie (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but your putting undue weight on the WP:PA violation. It is true that Manifestation's behavior is impulsive, but remember that they have been pushing for the un-blacklisting of the site for half a decade. Putting that aside, they have repeatedly stated, both in the past and in recent talks, that the reasons for the blacklisting of VeryWell are unsubstantiated. I also don't know what you mean by "nobody taking the request seriously." I thought putting aside the emotions of other Wikipedians and listening on what they have to say was a fundamental principle. Their feelings don't need to be considered in the context of this discussion at all. And refusing to hear them out for that lofty excuse alone is, in my opinion, not in accordance to Wikipedia's guidelines. Senomo Drines (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are human, too, and insulting the very same people who would be the ones to act on a request is indeed a poor idea. MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Although, starting a provocation to the person who criticized you doesn't exactly solve anything. Senomo Drines (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody criticized me, I'm not an admin and I had nothing to do with the initial blacklisting. And it is everyone's responsibility to call out personal attacks when they see them - that is how we keep Wikipedia somewhat civil. MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: Hijacked the discussion because I pointed out the problem?
    Look... I will admit that I called people stupid last year. And yes, I do realize that, in the Wikipedian culture, this is considered a "personal attack" in the sense that it is an insult on someone's personality, instead of an insult on someone's actions. In general, I try to avoid doing both. I usually try to be cool about things. I've been in many situations on Wikipedia in which disputes didn't go my way. The best way to handle it: forget about it, move on.
    But this is a very obvious case of abuse of power. This is crystal clear. If you could just spend 1 minute browsing verywellhealth DOT com, you would see that it should be nowhere near the spamlist. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. - Manifestation (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's start from the beginning, I don't want things to get too heated like with what happened last time. I am speaking on behalf of both sides here, let's defer back from this discussion, as the many past discussions about this very same site by Manifestation have proven by precedence to be unsatisfactory. Senomo Drines (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think the "both sides" are here? As far as I can see there should be only one side: Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not served by allowing spammers to abuse us to make money. Wikipedia is also not served by pretending that woo is medical information. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The party supporting the blacklist and the party against the blacklist, obviously. But I see your point, Wikipedia is not to win, after all. Senomo Drines (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I will not comment/judge on this request itself anymore (it is clear from the collapsed part why), but will comment on the other general statements given here. The statements that I give should be taken generic, not specific at verywell****, or even that they necessarily apply to verywell****. I've been on the spam front for a long, long time together with quite some others (User:JzG being another one of them), who have given their opinion earlier also.

    • reliable source, that does not magically protect a website from being spammed, pushed, abused. SEO is a business and SEO companies are hired by very respectable companies.
    • ... why the website is bad - on Wikipedia, spamming is the behaviour, not necessarily the material on the website linked to. The spam blacklists are used to stop people adding links when there is a reason to stop people from adding links. Some of those websites are spam (the common ones like viagra, porn or toys), for some websites it is the business owner who finds Wikipedia a good place to get some more visibility, some of those websites are indiscriminately pushed and useless (or rather useless / replaceable). I've have seen very respectable companies (sock-)spamming their links.
    • .. 2 of those spammers are sockpuppets of the original, essentially putting the number down to 2 spammers. No, the opposite. Websites that are spammed are generally only added by one organisation or even one person (or do you think that these are 7 totally different/random people from all over the world that happen to find this website and add them in similar ways to suitable pages? And this shows 8 totally unrelated people who add the same website to the same subject 9 times). It is one 'person' (/organisation), and they will go at great lengths. Having additions by just one account is even unlikely, it is too obvious, you'd better change IPs or make multiple accounts and hope you stay under the radar. Most spamming cases involve multiple accounts (the ones that don't generally result in a block on the account, not in the domain, with some thén starting to sock because we did not block the domain yet). I've had sockpuppets coming up every couple of days performing two far apart edits to add only one website and then the sockpuppet disappears. I regularly blacklist websites where spammers perform one edit per IP, weeks, months, or years apart. SEO is a business, companies hire SEO companies to get their websites pushed, also to Wikipedia. For any website that always means that 'spamming' occurs basically 'through one person'. By that judgement we should just leave sockpuppets spam because it is only one person who is adding it. We are not here to play whack-a-mole, we block the sockpuppets, and if needed will blacklist the sites help stopping the abuse. It is hardly the Wikipedia community that is cleaning up the mess. (That amount of people is not enough You really expect us to wait until we are at 10 different socks, and hours of community time wasted for cleanup?)
    • .. globally blacklisted .. no, it is only here on en.wikipedia, on this list. Not on meta. (There are a couple of wikis that blindly copy our blacklist (for whatever reason). There is a very wide rule on nl.wikibooks that also catches verywellhealth.com).
    • "better sources" could be used, but a "better source" does not necessitate that an "inferior" but still reliable source cannot be used. The process is a reverse of that, a judgement is made that a site is spammed, and that there are (better) replacements anyway. We are not here to play Whack-a-mole.
    • This organization also has its own Wikipedia page So do Pornhub, Infibeam, Change.org, OnlyFans, Swarajya_(magazine), Kickstarter, Roblox, and Tinyurl. SEO is a business, having your links on Wikipedia makes you money, even with nofollow people will still follow your links. Respectable organisations spam, it pays to have your website high up in search engine rankings. (Note that most of these companies did not spam themselves, but that the abuse was unstoppable in other ways (e.g. kickstarter is for soapboxing, a form of 'spamming'; the East Durham College's official website is not on pornhub).
    • .. nearly 7 years later I recently blacklisted a site where owners were slow-spamming this for about 6 years. There are cases in the archives that span 10+ years (with confessed site owners coming back to ask for their website to be delisted; do we remember Galatta.com, owner requesting delisting 10 years after blacklisting). Again: SEO is a business, having your links on Wikipedia makes you money. Spammers do not magically stop when their links are blacklisted. They will try, whine, use redirects, move or add domains, encode domainnames, hope for removal (this got blacklisted due to many accounts performing 1-2 additions, removed because someone needed it in one place, and immediately new accounts performing 1-2 additions popped up), move to other wikis, whatever. They need the links, it pays their bills. SEO companies have been payed to make sure their websites show up high in search engine rankings. Spammers do not stop.
    • The whitelist, in my opinion, does not have anything to do with it We whitelist sometimes for some time specific links to see in how far there is general/persistent/often use for a site. We can de-list, but additions sometimes restart when you de-list (and I know who has to do the clean-up) so we try a more gradual approach. And it helps you to make a case.

    You'll have to make a (positive) case, and having granted whitelist requests and/or a positive RSN discussion absolutely helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And all of this has *nothing* to do with Verywell. - Manifestation (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, you think that verywell does not do SEO? Dirk Beetstra T C 18:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* See this people? This is exactly how Beetstra behaved 5 years ago. He hasn't changed.
    What disconcerns me is that Beetstra genuinely seems to believe that he's fooling anybody with this colorful story, which has zero relevance to Verywell. This is just a rambling comment about how SEO is a business, how cold-hearted spammers are, how he blocked a New York limo rental, passive spamming by an Indonesian gambling syndicate, etc etc...
    Beetstra presents no evidence that the Verywell sites are unreliable or were spammed (because he doesn't have any). In fact, Beetstra just said: "I will not comment/judge on this request [about Verywell] itself anymore (it is clear from the collapsed part why)". But this topic is called "verywellmind". Why would Beetstra say that he won't comment on Verywell in a thread about Verywell? - Manifestation (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Play the ball, not the man. This website is spammy (big promotional boxes selling commercial services easily as scammy as BetterHelp) and it's also riddled with woo. And yes, it was spammed. Dirk does not like spammers. Neither do I. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The analysis seems simple here.
    1. It was spammed, end of discussion.
    2. Anyone who argues it is a MEDRS should not be editing medical topics. See www.verywellmind.com/i-tried-lions-mane-11694264, or the top listed reviewer biography: "Alicia Bigelow, ND is a functional and integrative medicine physician with over 20 years of experience in patient care." An ND is not a physician. Functional medicine is bollocks. Integrative medicine is the latest rebranding of SCAM and is also bollocks, even when practiced by people who, unlike this leading member of their medical review board, have a medical qualification. Or www.verywellmind.com/understanding-and-using-the-law-of-attraction-3144808, some credulous bollocks about the Law of Attraction, which, to quote our article, "has no demonstrable scientific basis".
    You are asking us to desert our policy on controlling spam in order to bring in a WP:ILIKEIT source that will end up with dozens of arguments around the place because it sure as hell is not generally reliable, and certainly not to the heightened standard of MEDRS. This seems to me to be a rather bad idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't quite understand the spamming issue. There has only been 1 recorded precedent of it 7 years ago. Beetstra did bring it up as a bullet point, but from my interpretation, they extrapolated it to other cases that have happened regarding sockpuppets. My question is, how do you know if an SEO scheme is occurring if you have the site blacklisted? The only proof was the spam that happened 7 years ago, and although the number of spammers is pretty redundant as proven by Beetstra, there's also not much proof that the site is still getting SEO'd to this day. I know that you don't want to wait for a potential spammer attack, but to what degree is that suspicion held up exactly? You listed examples, but you didn't bother talking about VeryWell itself as manifestation profusely mentioned. It seems excessive, especially today.
    I agree with the second issue, however. You listed exampling sites and mentioned the pseudoscience of their medical fields. I can't really argue with that. Senomo Drines (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first paragraph, I am referring to Beetstra, not to you, OP. Senomo Drines (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Experience, our experience is that spammers don't stop (bills and such). Experience shows that spammers generally dedicate themselves to a link or family of links and sock to get them in (and the first edits that started this case are like that). Both, I agree, without definite proof. But that goes both ways. And then the question becomes whether the quality of the site really warrants the risk of having the spamming continue.
    Manifestation, with the language that he is using, is the very reason I did not comment on the link itself. I've given that evaluation before, and I know how that is being responded to. With Manifestation involved in the discussion I am not going to decide to remove this link (even if I would agree with your reasoning), I would at best be an executor of an independent community consensus to remove (and I expect that Guy will think the same). Dirk Beetstra T C 15:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is more than likely that some of the evidence is private. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it is Guy. Of course it is. - Manifestation (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably just coatracks, but [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], ... (my database has a lag of 2-3 months, and much of this crap has already been cleared out). Different accounts (obvious socks) making the same edit to different language wikis. Also see [26] and [27], or just the language they use on their own website (verywellhealth.com/about-us-5180305). Still convinced that verywell is not a spam[med] website, that the spam does not continue after 1, 2, 5, 10 years, that this can easily be handled by the community, or that the initial socking or the Ethiopian-IP-that-moved-to-a-French-proxy were not starts of spam campaigns by freelancers? Lets just go through the whitelist and whitelist the material that is really needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Troubleshooting and problems

    What to do about pages relying heavily on citations to blacklisted domains?

    This is not so much a technical problem as a technical question.

    9×21mm Gyurza has seven citations pointing to dogswar.ru. They are all marked with 'CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown' messages. I confirmed that they are all still live and changed the url-status, but publishing the change said that dogswar.ru is blocked so I cancelled the publish. dogswar.ru is on the global blacklist (perhaps this is why the url-status bot has trouble verifying them?) but this is more of a Wikipedia rules/procedures question so I am asking here. I also can't speak to whether dogswar should be whitelisted or not - that is outside of my understanding.

    What I want to know is what should be done about existing citations to blacklisted domains and the CS1 maint warnings on those citations. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wikkiwonkk 'normal' editing is not affected by links already on the page that are also on the blacklist. Anything that, in any form, 'adds' a link to the page (i.e., the change results in a net change in way the link is used) will trigger the blacklist warning. The latter is what happens with your edit, it is currently a link on archive.is (and may be whitelisted through that), and it changes into a direct link when you change the status.
    The links were added here by user:FSbiran as archive.is links, which were expanded by GreenC bot to have the original links mentioned. Dogswar.ru was blacklisted in April 2011 per m:User:COIBot/XWiki/dogswar.ru.
    Ideally, anything rightfully linked that is blacklisted afterwards should be whitelisted. But that needs individual, page by page, editor vetting, as there will also be material that should not be linked in the first place. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I read what you wrote, it makes perfects sense. Of course setting url-status to live adds links to the article. I was thinking in 'source' mode, not 'published article' mode. Thanks for the explanation.
    As for that article, I'm just going to leave it alone because: I do not know Russian, it is a stub article that I know nothing about, and the only reason I noticed is because I have the CSS tweak to show CS1 maint problems. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]