Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2018

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

gspchem.com

[edit]

Repeatedly spammed by multiple IPs and one account. It's been ongoing for several months:

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

academicwritingpro.com

[edit]

Persistent addition of inline "easter egg" links to a provider of "essay writing services". General Ization Talk 19:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

spine-health.com

[edit]

spine-health.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 Spine-health is a website that provides credible, highly-detailed information about the symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. I have not found a single source that provides the level of detail that this website provides regarding back pain, herniated disc, sciatica, and many other spine conditions. The information on Spine-health is written by doctors and peer-reviewed by a medical advisory board before it is published. I have found that the information provided on Spine-health is not available from other sources.

Spine-health appears to have been blacklisted 11 years ago based on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1#spine-health.com). However, the highly-complex and detailed information that they provide would be a valuable addition to this community.

no Declined. No evidence this would be useful, it is not a reliable source (e.g. it promotes chiropractic), and the requesting IP has few or no other edits, and does not propose any article or content for which this would constitute a valid source. Oh, and the IP is registered to "Veritas Health", the publisher of the website. --Guy (Help!) 09:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This thread was removed by an IP: diff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

galatta.com

[edit]

galatta.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 site was writing about cine news and recently they have grown so much and conducting awards for actors and aired in You Tube and TV's in 2018. This is not spam site. I was trying to add the reference in a page and didn't allow me to do. Please remove the spam for us to reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by vibe21 (talk • contribs)

@Vibe21: no Declined per User:Beetstra/Long-term spamming/Galatta. --Guy (Help!) 13:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

breitbart.com (removal request)

[edit]

breitbart.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
Breitbart has been, and is currently, used in many articles. It is true that there are some recent socks which are inappropriately adding links to Breitbart. But I would argue that such disruption can be better handled by adding it to XLinkBot to block new users or IP users from adding such links. None of the socks banned is more than a week old, and as such XLinkBot should be able to handle this. Per what this page says when adding a blacklist Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting.. That was not done, and it would be inappropriate to do so as Breitbart is still a valid RS for its own opinions on many WP articles. Instead, when people are updating pages that already have links to Breitbart, they will get caught in this blacklist. -Obsidi (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm not the only one that is concerned if this is a long term blacklist [1] -Obsidi (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is on the blacklist to control massive spamming and disruption by JarlaxleArtemis socks. If you have consensus on a talk age that a link to Breitbart is appropriate in an article, you can request whitelisting. I understand that you object to Breitbart being deprecated per WP:BREITBART, but that's not an excuse for you falsely stating that there is a consensus that it is RS for its own opinions "on many WP articles". There are in fact very few where Breitbart is cited as a source for its own opinions, and that is a good thing, because per WP:UNDUE we should not be deciding that an unreliable source is reliable because we are presenting its opinions about something. I don't think you'd want the opinions of far-left websites included from the primary source on articles about far-right people like Trump or Bannon just because some editor decides it's a significant dissenting view, and I suspect you'd be doubly indignant if the source had a history of spreading fake news. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have not shown that XLinkBot cannot handle that. All of the socks you have pointed to are less then a week old. The blacklist can only be used if there are not other means of preventing the problem. Breitbart, whether you like it or not, is a RS for its own opinions, let me remind you from the RFC close It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary. You are highly WP:INVOLVED here, you personally started the RFC against Brietbart, and now you are using your tools to prevent even opinion/viewpoint/commentary of Breitbart which is a recognized valid reliable source for that. Sometimes it is good to have both far-left and far-right viewpoints discussed, that is what WP:NPOV is all about. -Obsidi (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More and more independent and uninvolved editors are objecting to your actions here. -Obsidi (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Obsidi: no Declined. 10 months of XLinkBot did not stop the abuse. It has been shown not to work. And note that the existence of links does not stop editingto the page. The rest can be whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

schick-sa.com

[edit]

This is added as promotional content "Inventor of the parking guidance system". Added to:

by an IPv6. The anon's IP changes with each edit/revert and communication is difficult to impossible. I did add a note on talk:Parking guidance and information#Addition of promotional content which I doubt has been read by the anon.
This website is not used elsewhere as a link or in any reference. Jim1138 (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim1138: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cartitleloanscalifornia.com, tfctitleloans.com

[edit]

Ideally, any domain with "titleloan" should be blacklisted. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 17:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: titleloan

if it is ideal.... --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davincivaporizer

[edit]
Spammers

+ others. Please blacklist. -KH-1 (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Changed/maimed this request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

beescoin.in

[edit]

Blog/linkfarm frequently and repeatedly spammed by dynamic IPs, all geolocating to Kolkata, India. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wirecellar.com

[edit]

Places shortlink redirects to involuntary software download, probable malicious SW. Domain itself is a redirect to ad.fly, no encyclopedic value. General Ization Talk 23:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sci-hub has a new TLD

[edit]

is the latest incarnation of Sci-Hub that someone has found and started posting as links for references. The site is generally a substantial a host of copyvio content. Except in the article about the site itself, we should presume any links to it fail WP:COPYVIOEL. While the additions seem to be in good faith, it's a long-term problem involving many different editors. We already blacklist them at .bz, .cc, .ac, but now they have jumped to .tw presumably as a result of their mile mile of lawsuit losses for copyvio. So I propose adding .tw. Thinking back to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2016#Sci-Hub, should we wildcard the TLD (pinging User:Anachronist)? DMacks (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist and DMacks: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, while we discuss more permanentsolutions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: The rule could be made more general, like sci-hub\.[a-z][a-z]. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: I was even considering \bsci-hub\. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: original requester not pinged on blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with sci-hub\.[a-z][a-z] (any two-letter TLD). I could even support \bsci-hub\. (that as any level of the hostname). The only non-two-letter I have seen is .tech. You added that specific one to blacklist on meta after discussing it there back in April. Should it be expanded there at least to include the two-letter regexp? DMacks (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Searching here on en.wp, I now see use of .io, .hk, and .club, so I now strongly support the more general regexp. DMacks (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: \bsci-hub\.

Broad regex. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks and Anachronist: plus Added \bsci-hub\.. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks and Anachronist: it is probably prudent to remove all these links now, replace them with the proper doi's. Maybe a task for a bot? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only about a 100 links per search though Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search for links yesterday and found only one in main space, which I did replace with a DOI. Everything else is in talk pages or archive discussions. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I replaced a bunch yesterday/today also. DMacks (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist, DMacks, JzG, and Galobtter:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be global. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only do major work on en.wp and commons. I see a few dozen uses there. Global sounds good. DMacks (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

breitbart.com

[edit]

And others. JarlaxleArtemis socks apparently. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist to control ongoing abuse. --Guy (Help!) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does Breitbart fall under WP:BLACKLIST? Skingski (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JarlaxleArtemis is amongst the most incorrigible and persistent long-term abusers, with a preference for stirring up trouble in powderkeg topic areas like American politics. Blacklisting is justified to deter him given his preference for open proxies and masses of socks. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 00:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If references contain blacklisted URLs

[edit]

Hope this is the right place for this kind of enquiry. What am I to do if a cited reference is to a website that has been blacklisted since the reference was added? I was just reverting vandalism on Rajat Poddar, but got a spam blacklist error because of one of the domains (awardsandwinners.com) has since been blacklisted, and so ended up leaving out that reference. — Smjg (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smjg: it depends on the reason of blacklisting, but if it is a proper reference, you should ask it to be whitelisted. Otherwise, remove the link./reference/whole statement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

waddle.com.au

[edit]

waddle.com.au: 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

Website for a company selling invoice-finance loans. Has been linkspammed by at least:

Zazpot (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 22:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tellonym.me

[edit]

User and now IPv6 hopper adding links to this with similar edit summaries. No reason for this site to be linked here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ketoconnection.com.au

[edit]

After discovering this in a talk-page FAQ, I wanted to leave a note here to see whether this is sufficiently egregious to be blacklisted. The IP who posted it last month has made no other edits, and I believe that it is not linked anywhere else on wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme school

[edit]

It seem some non-notable private school slip some spam link into wiki articles in order to promote their tutoring on the exam. The two domain above is not related to the exam but relates to the school. Matthew_hk tc 16:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ancient-origins.net

[edit]

ancient-origins.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

Looks like a decent site at first glance but actually full of fringe, eg The Legendary Hyperborea and the Ancient Greeks: Who Really Discovered America? It gets used by innocent editors as a source and external link. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: thanks, but I'm not sure what that does as it's still being added, eg here. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: It works alright, see diff and others.
Really decided to taunt the bot .. they have now for sure seen the warnings. If they now continue ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cinemawoods.net

[edit]


This unreliable blog type site is being spammed on multiple Indian articles by Nirmalsite (talk · contribs) who is a spamming only account, also an editor on the blog is called Nirmal, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalsite (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC) i am really Sorry for my websites adding Links in Wikipedia reference and i was not aware of Wikipedia guideline.. I Will not do this again and please Remove my site from Spam-blacklist... @Atlantic306 @Beetstra Dirk Beetstra Atlantic306[reply]

Websites aren't removed from the blacklist at the owner's request. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalsite hi please remove my Site from spamlist.. its just a news sharing website.. Please... I m really sorry bro and I will not add my news links in wiki reference Again.

" " " " " " " " " ". —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modiind.com

[edit]
Link
Spammers

+ others. Please blacklist. -KH-1 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

globalgeniuslisting.com

[edit]

Refspamming / spamming generally, per [6]. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG/help: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 16:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

xyznepal.com (removal request)

[edit]

xyznepal.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 My site is in blacklist, This is not spamming site, This is clean safe travel related site. I want want to remove this from blacklist. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XYZnepal (talk • contribs) 12:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The site was spammed into other WPs, not en-WP. XYZnepal, please see your talk page.Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Defer to Global blacklist. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cbronline.com (removal request)

[edit]

cbronline.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

usage:

<ref>{{cite web|url= www cbronline com/news/birth_of_a_new_dot_us_frontier/|title=Birth of a New (Dot) US Frontier|author=Nick Patience|date=10 March 1999|website=Computer Business Review|accessdate=19 October 2018}}</ref>

69.181.23.220 (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=594109892&oldid=594064636
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/LinkReports/cbronline.com
69.181.23.220 (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Defer to Whitelist to request specific links be allowed. The site will not be removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

econlib.org (removal request)

[edit]

Econlib provides many classical and modern economic texts and resources; while it has a right-libertarian skew (and is sponsored by something called Liberty Fund), I'd argue it has in general acceptable quasi-academic standards, with clear authorship and primary sourcing, holding a research think-tank reliability level perhaps, and it's at least worth reconsidering and clearly justifying the broad blacklisting (original inclusion discussion here and edit here). For the record what spurred my proposal is the fact that the David Ricardo 1817 book that is provided on Econlib is currently tagged as a suspect source on the Land Value Tax article page. The link itself is really sloppy (doesn't connect the Wikipedia text to a specific page and argument in the reference), but the source material is otherwise perfectly valid. Jaszczuroczłek (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What it mainly provides is an ideological wrapper around content not originated by them. It is a think-tank side project. Most of the links we have had are to out of copyright texts that should be linked to neutral repositories such as Wikisource or Project Gutenberg. It was also extensively spammed. If there is consensus to include specific content that is verifiably significant and not available from any source free of the ideological baggage, we have the Whitelist. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the link with a link in a university library. Guess ultimately it could be on WikiSource (it may already be). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaszczuroczłek: no Declined, redundant per above. --Guy (Help!) 23:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sci-hub

[edit]

Per policy and consensus filter sci-hub must be removed from article Sci-Hub. This is a skirting of community standards and is under no circumstance acceptable. See Talk:Sci-Hub. This is a clear exception of WP:ELNO Distrait cognizance (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Distrait cognizance: Rejected, bad faith request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is this bad faith? The block of the URL on the article page is in blatant violation of policy and the fact that it was not even considered when the block was put into place is a massive oversight. Your dismissal Beetstra is violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and enough to merit a discussion on WP:ANI about whether you are qualified to be an administrator – or at the very least are in violation of policy in your conduct towards others. There is no decision made regarding blocking the url on the page, and Whitelisting is a routine procedure that you are intentionally disrupting in violation of consensus. Distrait cognizance (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Distrait cognizance: You are NOT on the whitelist, you demand (bolded must), and suggesting that our blacklisting is skirting community standards and is in no circumstance acceptable is excessively harsh. It is not a violation of any policy, it is at worst a denial of the codified IAR that we have built into a guideline.
I do NOT accept that tone of posts from you (nor anyone). The blacklisting is instated per reasons of a legal policy, and gives minor problems on ONE page 'violating' one line out of a guideline where solutions are already being discussed as codified in guidelines and consensus, and I am actively helping in findin a solution. Adapt your tone next time you have a request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cause for the direct "demand" was the egregious oversight that was not considering how this would impact the article on Sci-hub, something which for any administrator working on the blacklist, should intuitively be their first thought.
Choosing action based on tone of the request is not acceptable behavior from an administrator, and is in fact what is at fault and what is violating CIVIL and AGF. There is no indication of bad faith beyond a strongly worded reaction (mind you not uncivil, nor rude, simply strong) to the fully bizarre way in which this block was implemented.
WP:IAR only applies as the result can be assumed to help Wikipedia. In this case the thing you'll find being defended is not Wikipedia, but your ego and pride. That is unfitting of an administrator, and only speaks to your position as sole arbiter of this list, which is itself also violation of policy.
In any case taking out this dispute by not immediately unblocking the link for the article in question is WP:POINTY, and I suggest you unblock it before this escalates into a serious issue. Distrait cognizance (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Distrait cognizance: We're done here. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no we definitely aren't. Choosing action based on perceived tone and thus being intentionally WP:POINTY may be enough to have you desysoped. This is going to WP:ANI as soon as I have time. This is just so far from acceptable behavior. For now, I need a second opinion from another administrator who is willing to follow policy. Distrait cognizance (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Second opinion requested — No policy rationale, a decision can not be taken on "tone of the request", especially when measured against something arbitrary. The request was neither uncivil or rude, simply on point — which seems not to be accepted by the sole administrator working this page. Distrait cognizance (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Now I don't get it, you apparently did it here [7]? Thanks. Distrait cognizance (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Distrait cognizance: No, you did not get it from the beginning, I have even explained it to you in my second post. Your demands in the wrong place are not getting you anywhere, your misquoting of policy/guideline neither. Your behaviour here, and elsewhere, is NOT acceptable. You are threatening multiple admins. Consider this your last warning, stop your disruptive behaviour, edit warring, and threats, or you will be blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

whereisscihub.now.sh

[edit]

Redirect to blacklisted Sci-Hub. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG/help: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 21:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG/help:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

vakilsearch.com

[edit]

Recurring spam by IPs and SPAs with a possible COI for an online startup consultant. As a purely commercial website (with unclear credentials and expertise), their promotional information and advice have no possible encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vakilsearch (removal request)

[edit]

vakilsearch.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

Thanks for the review. There are many commercial entities that make a big social impact listed in Wikipedia. One classic example would be Etsy. How do you make the distinction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meetajhu (talk • contribs)

@Meetajhu: this is plain spamming. I guess that has come to an end now. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: How am i supposed to know if someone else spammed it elsewhere? I have tried to edit that page, hope it helps. I have absolutely no intention to spam. I am just trying to make Wikipedia knowledgeable for people with different backgrounds. --Meetajhu T


factor8scandal.uk

[edit]
Spammers

+ others. Please blacklist. - Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:JJEv810 blanked this report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:JJEv810 blanked the report again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked User:JJEv810 for 24 hours. If they want to respond to this, they are welcome to discuss it here when their block expires. -- The Anome (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

artofliving.org

[edit]

artofliving.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

Found this while trying to undo a change on the art of living page. I couldn't understand why the website is added to spam. Its not redirecting, using url shortner, doing any suspicious activity, serving ads or opening pop-ups once you go to the website. The bot report also seemed unalarming. The reported vandal in proposed additions section above seems to have used it for citation. Not sure if mistakes of some user can be attributed to the website.

While the information about the website is available on the page in form of the domain name, adding the link to spam seems like an error. Could this be corrected please? Thanks.

PS: I'm only a visitor to the page, not someone getting paid by anyone for this. 122.178.206.30 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain per instructions there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least share why this domain is in spam? It doesn't violate Wikipedia:Spam or Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL in my newbie understanding. Also, not sure if discussions like these need to happen on the article's talk page. Guidance welcome. Thanks. 171.76.114.124 (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, the domain is not spam, editors were spamming the domain. And that has been noticed since 2009 (see e.g. User_talk:Post.amit, User_talk:Shaileshjgd, User_talk:27.106.41.93, User_talk:Sunakshitejwani). Some of the spammy material still remains, e.g. User:Wcf2016/sandbox. Edits clearly suggest coatrack edits and likely conflicts of interest (which is also suggested in the tag on Art_of_Living_Foundation). Please ask for whitelisting for the pages where this is primary source or official link type material. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found this domain is blocked under spam list. I couldn't understand what made the website to fall under the section. It didnot violate any wikipedia terms since the domain has high authority and reputed organization involved in many social activities to report with valid proof of article link for reference. Requesting to remove the domain from the blacklisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.187.58 (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read nothing that was said above? Beetstra explained it quite well. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand with confidence what Beetstra is saying. Specifically it is not clear what behavior "editors were spamming the domain" is referring to. I could start clicking on links provided and probably figure it out but this is not a clear explanation that would help a newbie. ~Kvng (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: I guess that you did not read the rest of the explanation then, where I present examples. Anyway, it is not my task, nor this the place, to regurgitate evidence. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read. I could start clicking on links provided and probably figure it out. ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2018&oldid=1056554907"