Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2025

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


webocreators.com

webocreators.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 This is an SEO service spam site that has been added to multiple articles by multiple IPs by hijacking reference links. I also see one hit on the Spanish Wikipedia, but opted to report here since that was from last year. Ternera (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

rightint.com

spammed by multiple ip addresses, see [1]. Ternera (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Beetstra -This was spammed by numerous IPs to en, but was also spammed twice to simple; is there a rule-of-thumb/threshold for elevating a blacklisting to meta vs local? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie I would say we should block it here (which I've done, FYI @Ternera) and let Simple follow their process. If it appears anywhere else, I'd say it would be ripe for global blacklisting then but YMMV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I reported it here instead of adding it to the global blacklist since this project had the majority of the spam and the simplewiki additions were older. Ternera (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie No real rule of thumb (I guess meta would say '3 wikis or more'), for me it depends more on the level of uselessness, and since there is precedent for spammers 'moving on' if one wiki gets blocked I don't always feel the urge to wait for the third one. This case with 12 editors, each with one edit ... Dirk Beetstra T C 17:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Bit similar to here, if I see 3 different IPs/accounts adding each 1 link of something useless I would not say 'ah, let's wait until we reach 10 before we call it unstoppable'. I know that I get the argument 'oh, but this is a good link(tm)' ... it has all the signs of spamming, it is likely not going to stop (and warning the editors is futile, they do one edit an account, they will not see the message banner). Harsh, maybe, but I am not here to play 'Whack-a-mole', and if I let it slide, I know who is going to clean it up .. hint: it is not those who complain that the link may have some use somewhere. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

yipzap.com

yipzap.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 An SEO-based site that has recently been added to several film articles to supplement more reputable sources covering the box office and budgets, and has been used to masquerade under the guise of reliable sources, as an WP:ARTSPAM. Recently been added to the Jurassic World Rebirth article. See some select highlighted diffs here, here, and here. The two known advertising perpetrators are:

Thank you, — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh sweet! I must've overlooked that. Thank you! — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

soyjak.st

soyjak.st: 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 Preventive as it's the new domain of the already blacklisted wiki.soyjak.party site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura240406 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, as in addition to the above, the new domain has already been used for spam and vandalism (e.g. Special:Diff/1285819214 and Special:Diff/1277445341). Thanks for reporting this. — Newslinger talk 15:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

sproutsocial.com

sproutsocial.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

Refspam, most recently accompanied by LLM-generated text. Some diffs: [2][3][4][5]. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Thanks for reporting this.​ — Newslinger talk 15:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Whitelist request – vivid.money (official site)

I am working on Draft:Vivid Money. The company’s official homepage https:// vivid.money is needed in the infobox / “External links” section as the primary URL of the subject. When I try to save the draft, the edit filter says the domain is blacklisted, but I cannot locate a specific entry for it in either the local or global spam blacklists. It may be caught by a wildcard rule that blocks all *.money TLDs.

I only require the link on the Vivid Money article; no other pages. Could an administrator please have a look at it? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3100:81D3:3300:8C37:86C8:D326:DD59 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done You can make a whitelisting request after (and if) your draft is accepted for publication. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I’ll focus on getting the draft reviewed first and will reopen the whitelist request if and when the article is accepted. 2A02:3100:81D3:3300:8C37:86C8:D326:DD59 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Removal/whitelist request: falstad.com (/circuit/circuitjs.html?ctz=…)

falstad.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 CircuitJS (…/circuit/circuitjs.html?ctz=…) is a FLOSS, self-hostable JavaScript-based circuit simulator, written by Paul Falstad and adapted by Ian Sharp (source code), which might be useful to demonstrate electronic circuits. Several circuit animations look like they have been created with this tool and a screen recorder. Any reasons to continue blocking the website? 138.246.3.174 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. 'might be useful' ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

bankinginsights.blog

Per the report by Helpful Cat at WP:ANI:

"I've noticed two IPs inserting links to the dubious (and AI-like) websites bankinginsights.blog/ and peoplesnewsletter.com into articles.
  • Replacing the contents of existing refs: diff, diff, diff
  • Unnecessarily rewriting text in the article in order to cite one of the dubious sites: diff" ...

Of these, Virustotal.com has flagged https://bankinginsights.blog/ as a malicious site. BD2412 T 19:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done, added to the blocked domains list. Will watch the other one. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Actually, I've added 'peoplesnewsletter' as well. After poking around, it's clearly the same spammer.Sam Kuru (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

share.google

share.google: 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 New URL shortener/redirecter (see share.google/ and https://old.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/1lg508s/shared_links_now_say_sharegoogle_instead_of/) which can be used to bypass blacklisted links. Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Do we typically handle redirectors and URL shorteners at meta? A lot of cleanup needed here. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
@Jay8g and Kuru:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. Needs the cleanup. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@Jay8g: Handled on meta. Suggest here what I suggested there: just use the expanded links, and expand the currently existing ones. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Unless I completely fail at understanding regex, it looks like you added google.share instead of share.google. As weird as it seems, .google is a valid TLD. Jay8g [V•T•E] 05:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@Jay8g no, you don't misunderstand. I used the on-IRC part of COIBot wrongly, generated the wrong XWiki report and used that. Thanks for noticing that.
Is it really a TLD, or does the system just add '.com' in silence? Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it is a legitimate TLD (and apparently there's a bunch of them). I don't think Google (or any of the companies on that list) has used it much on public-facing stuff, at least not yet.
Now that it's blacklisted, I'll start looking at getting rid of the existing links as I have time. Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Going through the IPs I do notice some 'ranges' (e.g. there is a set of IPs making edits to Truffle and similar). It may be that we have to have a look at the redirect targets there as well.
Note: I have now also blacklisted '\bgoogle\.com\/share\.google\b', which is the google expansion of the redirect. It is still followed by just a code, and google will redirect that link further. Similarly useless and similarly abusable. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Request to remove bookeventz.com from spam blacklist

Please remove the domain `\bbookeventz\.com\b` from the spam blacklist.

Rationale:

  • BookEventz.com is a legitimate business and India's leading event booking platform.
  • The website is not spammy and is actively used by customers to book venues and event services.
  • I am currently drafting a Wikipedia article about BookEventz, and links to its official website are necessary to cite official and verifiable information.
  • The domain is not associated with any spam, phishing, or malicious activity.
  • BookEventz has been covered in multiple reliable sources including YourStory, Economic Times, and TechCircle, proving its notability.

Requesting administrators to kindly consider unblocking the domain for legitimate encyclopedic use. Thanks in advance for your support! Bookeventz1 (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

no Declined. This was heavily spammed 9 years ago by socks and blacklisted appropriately. Creating a promotional article for this that was quickly deleted as G11 spam does not help. Please also not the instructions above: "Requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined." Sam Kuru (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@Bookeventz1: no Declined: None of the points are criteria, and your closest one has to go to the whitelist ( Defer to Whitelist). Please strictly review WP:COI, delisting requests by site owners are seldomly granted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Request to remove openpr.com from spam blacklist

Reason for Request

The domain \bopenpr\.com\b has been added to the Wikipedia spam blacklist. However, this domain corresponds to a legitimate website, openpr.com, which is a reputable and law-abiding platform. The only issue is that it shares a similar name with a different website that might be associated with spam or other malicious activities. Despite the similarity in the names, openpr.com is a legitimate, valid website that does not engage in any harmful, malicious, or spam-related activities.

  • openpr.com is a legitimate platform that serves the purpose of distributing press releases and providing public relations services.
  • The inclusion of \bopenpr\.com\b in the spam blacklist is causing unintended consequences by blocking the legitimate website, openpr.com, which is fully compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines and standards for external links.
  • openpr.com has been erroneously linked with spam due to the similarity in its name with another website, and this has caused undue harm to the reputation and online visibility of the legitimate website.

We kindly request the removal of \bopenpr\.com\b from the spam blacklist so that openpr.com can continue to be accessible and not affected by this incorrect association. The presence of this entry on the blacklist is affecting the legitimate website's ability to contribute to Wikipedia and its wider presence on the internet.

We believe that this action is necessary to ensure that legitimate and trusted websites, such as openpr.com, are not penalized based on the similarity of their name to other websites that may have been added to the blacklist for reasons unrelated to their actual practices.

If there is any need for additional verification, we are happy to provide further evidence of the legitimacy of openpr.com, including references to independent reviews, news articles, or other authoritative sources that vouch for the website's credibility and compliance with web standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Bookeventz1 (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

no Declined. This is an open-content platform that was heavily used to spam and bypass our blacklist seven years ago. There is no confusion on the name, at all. The consequence of less spam has indeed been realized and was intended.Sam Kuru (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
1ND = Not a Doctor Guy (help! - typo?) 08:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

And all of this has *nothing* to do with Verywell. - Manifestation (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Why, you think that verywell does not do SEO? Dirk Beetstra T C 18:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
*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)
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)
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)
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)
For the first paragraph, I am referring to Beetstra, not to you, OP. Senomo Drines (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
It is more than likely that some of the evidence is private. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Of course it is Guy. Of course it is. - Manifestation (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably just coatracks, but [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], ... (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 [13] and [14], 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)

If this is being cross-wiki spammed, it should be added to the global blacklist on meta. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@A. B. It is (ab)used to make a coatrack for more spam. I left it to the people who are looking into this (active) case, sometimes a honeypot (edit filter) is helpful, if it is blacklisted they move to another site, or you don't see the other links due to another part of your edit being blocked by the blacklist. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Good idea. I love honeypots. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

slothfullthings.com

slothfullthings.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

2a02:8108:50c:5000:f907:ecb1:3532:e837 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)

Based on this edit: Special:Diff/1301976264

Spidermario (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done We don't blacklist sites for a single addition. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 July 2025

Kindly remove the line, to remove simform website from this list. \bsimform\.com\b Lucianvince (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Wrong process (Use #Proposed removals instead) and no reason given. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

telegra.ph

telegra.ph: 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

Example: Special:Diff/1303164308

The article Ethel Caterham is being repeatedly hit by an IP vandal inserting misinformation, with a reference to what appears to be (on a very cursory glance) a news website - the URL and content appear so: https://telegra.ph/Ethel-May-Caterham-the-UKs-Oldest-Person-Dies-at-115-07-28. However, this site appears to exist for no reason other than to create 'fake' news articles and it's easy for anyone to do so, as I have done here: [15]. For this specific article I have requested page protection, but I can see no good reason to ever link to this site, and every reason to blacklist it so it cannot be used in similar circumstances elsewhere (if, indeed, it is not already). Dorsetonian (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

plus Added to blacklist. I wouldn't say the site exists solely for creating fake news; looks like it's also used a an ad-hoc announcement/blogging site; for example, this one-off post. There is some other existing use, but most (if not all) of it is inappropriate and should be removed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks - and yes, that example looks like a valid use of the site.
Unfortunately, the IP vandals have found a loophole - the links are now to telegr.ph - see Special:Diff/1303203843. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Added that too, dropped a rangeblock. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks for that as well! Dorsetonian (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

technewtime.com

technewtime.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

Two SPA accounts and two IPs adding inline external link spam to this domain across various tech/AI articles today. Blocking the accounts hasn't stopped it. --Belbury (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

plus Added to spam blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

roulette77.us

roulette77.us: 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

plus Added to blacklist, blocked the whole nest of them. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2025&oldid=1309731094"