Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newslinger (talk | contribs) at 04:30, 27 May 2020 (→‎Peoplepill.com: Added to Blacklist using SBHandler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

    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 – 959100751 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    lyricbird.xyz

    Yet another lyrics site. Guy (help!) 10:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, Thanks Dirk. I wonder if the entire .xyz TLD should be blocked, with whitelisted exceptions. All but two I have found to date have been spam, cybersquatted, malware or hopeless. Guy (help!) 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, I started to wonder the same. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen more lyrics sites from this TLD plus other just flat-out garbage sites. I'm not sure I've seen any good sources from this TLD, in part because it's still fairly new. I would certainly support this. Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    filmybubble.com

    Recent blow-up of edits, but the guy I spotted was also spamming in November 2019. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Moscow Media Group

    A few months ago you all may recall that I came across a bunch of black hat SEO sites masquerading as "real" media outlets, usually operating under the name of similar notable and reputable media outlets (ie. Boherald.com was mistaken for Boston Herald etc...) well it appears one major group running these sites is an SEO firm Moscow Media Group which publishes content to falsely inflate the importance of various clients (ie. PR firms pay MMG to publish on one of their many websites which may have been legitimate at one point in time and sniped, or never legitimate but are made to deceive.) Here is a link to MMG's (now defunct) website. Praxidicae (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Praxidicae: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae:, @Beetstra: I don't understand this black-list, London Post and Essex Magazine are no longer working with Moscow Media Group, they are just using their web design structure. You might want to get your facts right. This has no bering on news content that's independent to each website. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, they're operated by a black hat SEO agency. They have no legitimate use on Wikipedia or anywhere else. There are 0 credible articles on any of the three and they have no editorial oversight and are being used to intentionally deceive readers. Praxidicae (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No they are not, it's just like a wordpress skin created by Moscow Media Group. Govvy (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They are indeed a blackhat SEO firm's site. Take a look at the owner(s). I've looked into this extensively. This is not a site that should be used anywhere on Wikipedia, unless of course you can come up with some proof that it's legitimate. Praxidicae (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This domain is used entirely to inflate the importance individuals who pay firms to do this work. Google "A 2Trom News Group Company" for yourself and take a look at their "editorial staff." And if you still don't believe me, take a look at these ads: five-rr.com/m4tty1/publish-article-or-interview-on-celeb-news-site (rmv -) , prnews.io, fiv-err.com/hudsoncoldblue/publish-your-news-article-or-press-release and I can link about a hundred more. So it's clear they absolutely do allow guest posting (and that's all they do) and somehow, don't identify any of their paid articles from what is supposedly "legitimate" journalistic publications. This is typical black hat nonsense and simply put, can never be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia and is used only to spam unencyclopedic crap. Pretty much fits the definition of what this list is for. Praxidicae (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    newsstudio18.com

    A terrible attempt to be passed off as a legitimate news site. Let me quote from their "contact us" page: "Act so surprised your highness. You mercy mission this time several transmissions were beamed to this ship by Rebel spies" Praxidicae (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Praxidicae: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    modiyojna.xyz

    Looks like the spammers are operating slowly. Also sometimes using subdomains like "m.modiyojna.xyz", "d.modiyojna.xyz, "r.modiyojna.xyz". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cyphoidbomb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    smartbusinessbox.in

    Already blocked spammer User:Nikhilmalve was posting this to numerous pages. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    jesustechnology.com / robertyave.org / robertyavo.org

    Blocked all of these for spam, but likely to re-appear unless the links are blacklisted. Left quite a mess of advert screenshots on Commons that also need to be deleted. SpencerT•C 01:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Spencer: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to see userreports for these, lets see if we got all domains. —Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    sarvcrm.com

    See COIBot report. Heavily spammed back in 2016, stopped, then picked up again last year. Still ongoing as of yesterday. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Suffusion of Yellow: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, users indeffed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    covid19india.org

    A user-generated-data providing website which is not even close to being WP:MEDRS. Many users have been adding the site's links to various articles to source information regarding COVID-19 pandemic in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.165.156 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    mimzo.net

    See Special:Diff/956118175 and Special:Diff/956045444, etc. The IP address is in the IP range that is associated with the report in #Google Play Store listings for Android apps by "pub" (com.sbdtube). — Newslinger talk 04:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Play Store listings for Android apps by "pub" (com.sbdtube)

    The IP range has spammed external links to https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sbdtube.indianews&hl=en across dozens of articles. — Newslinger talk 05:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 05:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    mediaworldasia.dk

    Links were spammed in "External links" sections across dozens of articles. The accounts were blocked in 2009, but the links were never removed. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Newslinger, this is old spamming, is it still current? Regardless, there's a cleanup operation required first or we'll get lots of noise. Guy (help!) 10:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ​I doubt it's current, but I wanted to trace the COIBot logs. Perhaps WP:RSPAM would have been more appropriate for this. I'll clean up the links. — Newslinger talk 10:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See COIBot reports. Multiple sites spammed by a /25 range over the past few weeks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Suffusion of Yellow: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. There is also a user. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    quick.md

    Being added by

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doc James: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    breitbar.com

    Removed a link to this from an article. Very probably a mispelling of breitbart... Should be added to blacklist as no legitimate content can be sourced from there (WP:BREITBART), and it should not be possible to add mistaken (either intentionally, to avoid the blacklist) or accidentally, if the user is not aware of policy) links like this one either. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 17:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @RandomCanadian: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    newsindialive.in

    SEO spam from dynamic a IP. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Suffusion of Yellow: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blanked this report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    whatreallymakesyouill.com

    Blatant conspiracy theory website; IP used it as a "source" at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic linking to a subpage claiming that germ theory is "a deadly fallacy"; with links to anti-vax and other kind of nonsense... No legitimate use. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 01:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @RandomCanadian: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but we can move it to an edit filter if anyone feels strongly about it. --Guy (help!) 10:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    celebprofile.blogspot.in

    Blog, obviously, with some evidence of COI/spam in article histories but mostly just a hopeless source that keeps being added by editors from India. Can we add to the revert list please? Guy (help!) 10:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Blogs are on XLinkBot (\bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.(com|in)\b), so if it is spammed ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    lailaformation.blogspot.com

    Add to COIbot watchlist? Guy (help!) 10:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: watchlist? Meh. There is also an IP. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    doxbin.org

    Spamming and doxxing, a perfect storm. Guy (help!) 11:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    allpmyojana.in

    Usual Indian spam junk site, it's been spammed to several articles by a named user and an IPv6 user at a minimum. They are probably the same, but the IP doesn't have a small range to be blocked. Worth consideration. Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    More blackhat SEO sources

    dailymusicroll.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

    aboutinsider.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

    muziquemagazine.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

    As per my observations here, these are fake sites like the several others I've requested recently. Ping me if more information is needed. (The staff page on aboutinsider is particularly hilarious.) Praxidicae (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    SEO is evil. Guy (help!) 18:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Praxidicae: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 18:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    getresponse.com

    getresponse.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

    Was spammed by an IP. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @The4lines: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 18:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    .xyz

    Yes, an entire TLD. Why? Because every single instance I have seen, with the sole exception of two domains owned by Alphabet, has been spam. Can we add this to the revert list please? Guy (help!) 18:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    animenewsnetwork.com

    Use to many links and have spam behavior because put to many links at one wiki. All major anime subject wikies appear at least 10 links with this domain like Anime, Naruto, Dragon Ball. This site appear spammy and not a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sareville (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sareville: What makes you think that the links are on Wikipedia because of spam, as opposed to the source being used in good-faith by editors who may not be aware of proper sourcing? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, "For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga." There is a caveat to avoid "Fan interest" content, but otherwise, this appears to be a legit outlet for anime-related content. So it's unclear what your beef is with this source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyphoidbomb: Is because have so many links added and is considered spam. Like have more than 10 links to animenewsnetwork.com but to only one wiki have these number. And what i see links to all wiki have more than 100 links total on all major wikies with anime subjectt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sareville (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's considered a reliable source, then it's fine for inclusion unless you can demonstrate a concerted effort by a user or users to promote that site. no Declined Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyphoidbomb: So for me because i try to edit some anime wikies and add some information, like i try to edit one wikie or two and add 2 links to my website in references, and is a reliable source, it was declined and the animenewsnetwork is possible to have so many links, but my site i try to added 2 links it not was approved my edits. And i try to make a wikie about my site and the same not was approved but animenewsnetwork have rights to have a wikie about that site on wikipedia. So how is right? animenewsnetwork have right to have own wiki and many links but to my site can not add 2 links and one wikie about that site because not was approved. And i see you need to proove a user try to promote that site and only than will be blacklisted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sareville (talk • contribs)
    @Sareville: So if I understand it correctly, you want it blacklisted because your site is removed all the time? Have you taken m:Terms of use and our conflict of interest guideline truly into account? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Yes i taken terms of use and conflict of interest guideline and i don't maked anything wrong. Just added some information which appear on my site, and put a new reference with external link to my site. And with wikie page about my site, i don't have nothing to be a confilct of interest. That site earn 200000 unique visitors/monthly only from wikipedia which is not fair.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sareville (talk • contribs)
    @Sareville: 'That site earn 200000 unique visitors/monthly only from Wikipedia, which is not fair' .. maybe that site is a good resource that deserves to be used, and that is a fair recognition.
    Still, 'added some information which appear on my site' is exactly what WP:COI suggests you not to do (and actually, trying to get a competitor blacklisted is also what WP:COI suggests you not to do), and you did not clearly declare your connection on your userpage, which is what m:Terms of use as you to do. Be very careful how you proceed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    anime.me.uk

    Ah, the plot thickens ..

    This is not your first account, and with the warnings and blocks received with those accounts you did not get the message that you are here in blatant violation of the terms of use of this website. By now, due to your persistence, your website has been already blacklisted on one local wiki, and that is why you now want a competitor website, which was not spammed/abused/added in violation of the terms of use, but used genuinely instead.

    Original request: Rejected, bad faith request. And I repeat my warning, be very careful how you proceed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that this needs to go to meta if any further spamming occurs. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I'm glad you sussed this out. My first instinct was that this guy had an irrational beef with one website, which suggested that he tried to spam something and was rejected in the past. Glad you endeavored to look deeper than I did! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyphoidbomb, thanks! This looked like it was more than the one edit they made, COIBot and LiWa3 to the rescue! Dirk Beetstra T C 18:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    toiletsandbaths.com

    IP and new account spam, see COIBot report, the IPs are rangeblocked but clearly they're willing to create accounts as well. Popped up on commons once, don't think that's enough for a global blacklisting. creffett (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    already plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist by User:Creffett (I guess we ran the script at the same time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, think so, not sure why my run didn't post the "added" response. creffett (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Creffett, I am not sure whether the script understands edit conflicts, maybe I pressed save just before you, and the script ignored your edit conflict and just went on. Then you confirmed a tad earlier than me. Meh .. it got blacklisted. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    theindiantechguy.com

    Found this egregious spam, and while I probably would have withheld report this to the blacklist, I also noticed that the URL was being used at a number of TechCrunch articles in different languages, and I tracked down that spam to this edit at WikiData, so that compels me to submit this report. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cyphoidbomb: in that case, likely  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. Involving WD in spam becomes more and more a problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyphoidbomb: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Thank you, mate! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    healkit.in

    See COIBot report. Spammed by a dynamic IP. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Suffusion of Yellow: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    percona.com

    Recurring promotional editing and recurring spam, immediately continued after several clear warnings and a previous block for the same IP. GermanJoe (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A few submissions

    Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Added two more. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Added moviesdude.in. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Poking/tracking the users. —Dirk Beetstra T C 15:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cyphoidbomb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Peoplepill.com

    Mirror that trips up a lot of good faith new contributors, and only ever has Wikipedia or other user generated content, Sadads (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note on this; I've always tried to avoid blacklisting mirrors since they're really not what the spam blacklist was created for. This one is just way out of control at the moment (at one point yesterday there were 30+ articles with a peoplepill ref added in the last day). For whatever reason it's ranking pretty high on google, and a large number of new editors are getting confused. The attribution to Wikipedia is there, but on a large copied article it can be easily missed. Additionally, the images they scrape (usually not the ones from Wikipedia) do not seem to have a license or attribution, making this a bit of a copyvio farm. I'd be in favor of just adding this one to the blacklist - it will never be a useful link here for any reason - but would prefer not to do it myself since I've been chasing it down for many years (it used to be "upclosed.com" previously). Kuru (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sadads and Kuru: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    Suite101.com

    This website has been offline since 2017, according to the Wayback Machine. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: it went down around 2013 or 2014, when the domain became a redirect to "Suite.io", a blogging/social networking platform of some sort. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zanimum, is it of any use now? Dirk Beetstra T C 19:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zanimum, thanks for this. If it's still blacklisted, it was resolvable earlier this year. We recently purged unresolvable domains and those with no hits for five years - we'll do the same again, but right now I think we probably should wait a bit to check it isn't hoovered up by cybersquatters. Guy (help!) 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Verywell, 2

    Verywell is a family of four websites; the above three are blacklisted. I already made a thread about them last month, see here, but I forgot about it afterwards. On 28 April, I decided to give it another try and went to WP:RSN. In the ensuing thread, it was claimed that the Verywell sites had been spammed. There is no evidence of this. Two LinkReports exists: verywell.com (which now redirects to verywellhealth.com) and verywellmind.com. However, these don't actually show spamming. The verywellmind.com report does show repeated editing from a very wide IP range (197.156.*.*), but if you look closely, this is actually a single user from Ethiopia who stubbornly attempted to insert a link into Video game addiction, *after* the site was blacklisted.

    Verywell was banned following this thread, which cited a small sockpuppet case. However, this involved no spamming. Only a copyvio.

    I believe that the Verywell sites were unjustly blacklisted and I propose their removal. There is no consensus whether the sites are reliable (I believe they are), but that issue is unrelated to this banlist, which is primarily to prevent spamming, for which there is no evidence. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Manifestation, noting, as I did in the RS thread, that the excuse of the single Ethiopian is invalid, as the same link was added to the same page through an open proxy in France, and there are 3 instances weeks apart. I do not think that the stubbornness there is solely related to a person that was unable to add that link, I believe that there is more there behind those attempted edits.
    I still believe it was justly banned, it was abused by multiple editors in a case relating to copyvio material. It was a just way of stopping that abuse. Reliability is not a reason to blacklist, but I do believe that there is no value in unblacklisting something that is abused unless there is widespread use for a site, where widespread use is not there if it is largely unreliable, or unsuitable as a source (and since this is health-related, WP:MEDRS should be satisfied that this is a good source).
    I am not entertaining requests that state that the site was unjustly banned (that may have been a situation of the moment, of which you cannot even see all the evidence, and where some information is not known: was the editor attempting to spam by copying their information and linking to it (i.e. spamming; note that the pages ranked in the top 10 medical sites less than a year after launch), or was it an uninvolved editor who desperately tried to incorporate the data).
    I would entertain a delisting if one can show that there is widespread use of a site, and there is not widespread spamming. I can concur with the latter part of your evaluation (though I haven't gone through all the (attempted) edits to get a wider view), the WP:RSN thread does not seem hopeful for the former: a conclusion of 'marginally reliable' even when not taking into account WP:MEDRS does not help. I am still in favour of just whitelisting the (likely very few) cases where reliability and use can be shown. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "it was abused by multiple editors in a case relating to copyvio material"
    That was actually a college student from Sri Lanka who copy-pasted text into Social anxiety disorder. She used two or three accounts, and one IP. It wasn't spamming. The case can be found here. Further analysis is here.
    As for the Ethiopian person, he or she did indeed use a VPS IP from French company OVH in a failed attempt to bypass the blacklist. They tried repeatedly to insert this article to Video game addiction, a subject he/she apparently felt very strong about. In the verywellmind.com LinkReport, the first ten IPs that made edit #93 to #109 are as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. As you can deduce from the edits, the dynamic IPs are from Ethiopia, and they have not spammed. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep learning new things about Wikipedia. I just found out that there are actually *four* LinkReports, not two. This site just overwhelms me. :-(
    The above LinkReports show no evidence of spamming. - Manifestation (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, in your view. I am not so cure. Before we risk opening the floodgates, is there consensus that this meets WP:RS and WP:MEDRS? Guy (help!) 20:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, I already stated that there maybe was not real spamming. However, there was pushing with copyvio, and using the spam blacklist to mitigate that is very well within the scope, especially if a site is of marginal reliability (it could even be if the site is very reliable, we do blacklist specific links to reliable material if there is someone pushing it). Do we now really want to de-blacklist because 'maybe it was not spamming', while knowing that it is of marginal reliability. My suggestion remains: it is better to whitelist specific links where there is consensus that it is needed and reliable.
    (COIBot will regenerate reports when requested, posting here inside {{LinkSummary}}-templates is one of the ways of requesting the bot to do that). Dirk Beetstra T C 06:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: The issue of reliability is unrelated to blacklisting, but I do think the sites are reliable. The Verywell sites have review teams of board-certified physicians, who peer review articles. They are also supported by the Health On the Net Foundation (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family). They are popular press sites, which should never be used primarily, but could be used as ancilary refs. WP:MEDPOP warns against them, but also states that if they are of a high quality, they could be used. See also the comments on the RS noticeboard.
    @Beetstra: Those copyvios were done in late 2018 by three accounts and one IP from Sri Lanka, see the sockpuppet case. Copy-paste jobs are not a good reason to banlist a site.
    Blacklisting all popular press sites and whitelisting specific links to them is bureaucratic, time-consuming, and un-Wikipedian. I wouldn't be for it. - Manifestation (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Verywell is a popular collection of sites, with Alexa ranks of 3,644 (verywellhealth.com), 4,240 (verywellmind.com), and 9,386 (verywellfamily.com). In my opinion, the threshold of evidence required to blacklist popular sites with valid use cases (including Verywell, which can still be used for non-scientific and non-medical information according to WP:MEDPOP) should be higher, as blacklisting these sites causes a substantial amount of collateral damage by making it more difficult for editors to use these sources correctly. Considering that verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com have already been blacklisted for over a year, I support Manifestation's proposal to remove them from the spam blacklist. If the spamming recurs, we can always revert the edits and blacklist the domains again. — Newslinger talk 17:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "If the spamming recurs, we can always revert the edits and blacklist the domains again."
    While I have not seen evidence of spamming, I agree that if there will be, the domains must go back on the list. I also concur with the rest of your comment. Also, do you happen to know if COIBot will continue to update the LinkReports, even after the domains are no longer on the banlist? Because if COIBot keeps updating them, I can watchlist the LinkReports and keep an eye on them. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And? Is Verywell going to be removed? - Manifestation (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging Praxidicae here, who closed my previous thread. @Praxidicae, you dismissed my request last time because Verywell had "persistent violations of WP:MEDRS", which is false. This has since been changed to "persistent abuse", which is also false. Considering the evidence I have produced in support of Verywell, what is your current opinion? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Manifestation: You could have pinged me as well. I stand with my last points. Yes, maybe it was not spamming (smaller maybe it was). However, by your own point, it is of 'marginal reliability' and I stand then with the 'maybe it was not spamming, maybe it was': I am of the opinion that we should see this at the whitelist first. If there is really a significant use we can revisit this, but with one granted whitelist and one declined whitelist request in 2 years I do not think that we have a volume of links that the whitelist cannot handle (and then, I have to see whether we really think that this is suitable for use in many of the cases where we do see requests). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: I prefer removal from the blacklist entirely because there was no spamming or abuse.
    @JzG: What is your opinion? Remove or not remove?
    @Newslinger: What do you think? And you haven't replied to my comment about the LinkReports yet (see above). Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Manifestation: You can dogmatically repeat: ‘there was no spamming’, it is not the only concern regarding this site. I stand with the point: maybe there wasn’t any spamming, maybe there was. I know that you want it off this list, but ‘maybe spammed’ x ‘marginally reliable’ x ‘can easily be handled with whitelisting to curb both the spamming and the misuse of this marginally reliable site’ lands me at a preference to see how much we really need vs. how much would have to be removed because it was misused first. The few whitelist requests we saw does not give that image clearly yet. —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am not even convinced that the only use that we currently have of this site is for that subject the right use: if a ‘very well’ site has to tell me why bodies were buried the way they were buried then I doubt that they are a subject expert on it and I doubt that no subject experts have published the same. —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing a website from the spam blacklist can be difficult because, in practice, the burden of proof for showing that the website no longer poses a spam risk is on the editors who support removal. The most straightforward way to show that a site should be unblacklisted is through a pattern of successful whitelist requests, but there is a good chance that editors (particularly inexperienced ones) who attempt to cite Verywell will simply give up instead of requesting whitelisting.

    Can we add another intermediate step ("probation") to the unblacklisting process for sources like Verywell that appear to be harmless, but have not yet received enough whitelisting requests? My suggestion is to implement a new edit filter (set to "log") that tracks the addition of external links to all websites that are on probation. Websites that are placed on probation are removed from the blacklist, and the administrator who approves the probation is tasked with monitoring the edit filter log. If spamming occurs during the probationary period, the site is restored to the blacklist. If there is no spamming up to the end of the probationary period, then the website is removed from the edit filter.

    Does this sound like a reasonable suggestion? — Newslinger talk 11:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Newslinger hose edit filters tend to be quite heavy. Moreover they don’t do much more than a COIBot report. Added to that, because we know it is a marginally reliable source, it may require quite some work in cleaning up. 2 handled whitelist requests in 2 years is nothing, if that is the load I do not see much reason to give us work by removing it. —Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: You agree with him?? Even though he's obviously lying?
    I'm at the end of my rope here. Seriously, I'm at my limit. I've been trying to get through to you guys for weeks now, both here and at WP:RSN. But you either don't listen to me, or you don't care. Newslinger, thanks for trying to be a voice of reason here, but there are so little whitelist requests because many people don't know how to file one, don't care enough, our assume that something must be wrong with Verywell due to it being on the blacklist, even though there isn't anything wrong with Verywell. But people believe what they want to believe I guess. - Manifestation (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked for my opinion, I gave it. You don't get to belittle it. Don't ping me here again. Praxidicae (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, Manifestation he's obvioussly lying is a pretty hefty charge, I expect your next edit will be providing diffs. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, I see that as a personal attack. Withdraw that now. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    mentaldaily.com

    The archives show that the URL was previously blocked due to a user, named Scorpion293, who engaged in paid advertising/spamming/sockpuppets.

    Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia: I am in the process of expanding a section of the Aurora, Texas page. I found the website on the University of North Texas At Dallas Library Resources page [1] and would like to add an in-depth story they published that's on Google News, as there aren't others on the web with that information, I've looked through search engines already. The Dallas Morning News is the only other source that provides some of the information for my edits on the section of the Airship incident from the 1890s.

    Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore: This is perhaps the only reliable source where I can find this particular information to make the edits on the section of that page. The site is also listed on other universities and academic institutions. HSE001 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @HSE001: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    HSE001, As a rule of thumb, when a blog is the only source for something, it's not significant. And in this case, given that the blog was almost certtainly started well after the incident, you should be able to identify the original source and use that. Guy (help!) 19:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    weirdcrap.com

    This site was previously usurped by domain grabbers and blacklisted in May 2011, but the site was restored later that year (c. 3 July 2011 - see wayback) and has been the same ever since. I would like to restore the URLs that were removed from Chick tract and possibly other places.--Auric talk 14:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Auric, how is that a reliable source? Guy (help!) 19:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean. The source was previously usurped and is now fine. No problem was found previously and I can't see any now.--Auric talk 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Auric, sure, but removing it from the blacklist allows links, and I'd like some credible reason why that might be a good idea. Guy (help!) 21:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated above, so that the references in Chick tract can have the urls put back. Currently the reverences are missing their urls and as such have a "Missing or empty |url=" error and a hidden note that is now inaccurate. --Auric talk 21:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    pv-magazine.com

    Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia: PV-Magazine is one of the most respected and cited sources of information on the global photovoltaics sector.

    Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore: I don't know why they were blacklisted, but they would be a useful source for many pages on this topic. RaAmun (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For the reviewing admin, the most recent discussion. Praxidicae (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RaAmun: no Declined. it was blacklisted because it was badly, heavily spammed. I know they promised to stop shortly after it was blacklisted, but 5 years later someone of the company did comment again on a thread regarding this site - they are following this.
    Most of the material is churnalism, more than original journalism. They republish material. Examples, quoting from their front page: "The EU research group tasked with optimizing renewable energy auction procurement processes said ..."; www.pv-magazine.com/2020/05/11/solar-canopies-can-put-pv-panels-in-some-new-and-interesting-places/ is completely recombined from the information presented here, here, here, and here (including the pictures), and another headline on the front page "Scottish start-up Gravitricity is planning a project to store surplus power from renewables at Port of Leith", leads to the article @ www.pv-magazine.com/2020/05/11/storing-wind-and-solar-with-new-gravity-based-system/: "Scottish start-up Gravitricity has developed a gravity energy storage system it says ..." (all my bolding). It is all rewritten from the original sources. They are, basically, a primary source pretending to be a secondary source. For the (very, very) few cases where the material can be shown to be original enough, the whitelist will suffice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    www.themoviedb.org

    Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia: I tried to add a movie link to themoviedb.org, but was surprised to see it flagged as spam. I believe themoviedb.org is a reasonable portal for movie information. Also flagged is tmdb.org, which redirects to themoviedb.org Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore: I wondered why it was flagged in the first place, but even if the site was low quality in the beginning, it is acceptable now. 81.170.243.50 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. This was spammed very hard. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    420chan.org

    Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia: I am trying to write an article about the site, to be moved to 420chan (after a WP:RFUP). Perhaps the site is not broadly useful, indeed, it most likely isn't. However, if possible, it should be unblocked for at least two pages: 420chan and my draft at User:Psiĥedelisto/420chan. I only strictly need the index unblocked, but I might need to refer to other pages (e.g. about pages, keeping in mind the limited ways I may use WP:PRIMARY/WP:SPS) in references.

    Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore: It was added a very long time ago, 2009, due to WP:LTA/Grawp. Certainly spam of it could start again, but then again, any domain can be spammed. There's no intimation that 420chan benefited in any way from this spam or caused it to happen, and the other domains blocked at the same time, by the same admin, for the same reason, are other "shock" sites or "porn" sites. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 08:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Psiĥedelisto, we can whitelist a single About page as a link in the article. Guy (help!) 09:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: If only one page will be whitelisted, please whitelist the index. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 09:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Psiĥedelisto, sure,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. The site itself is of no merit as a source and was definitely abused. We recently purged blacklist entries with no recent hits, so this is still likely to be needed. Guy (help!) 09:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Merged from other section

    the site was blacklisted in 2009 for spam, and has only recently received a wikipedia page. imho the risk of spam has long since passed and the site should be removed from the blacklist so it can be linked to in its own page. 𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕪𝕖𝕕𝕤 / אפרים (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vernyeds: I've merged your request to my earlier request; there's no reason to make two sections for the same site. I disagree that any further links need to be whitelisted, most of the ones you wanted to add to 420chan are not suitable for inclusion anyway. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    mbarendezvous.com

    Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia: We are an Education based news site and help Students preparing for MBA Education.We try our best to help students publish relevant content so that they can not only get the information but also clear various MBA Entrance exams.

    Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore: This happened due to an SEO agency we hired to help us improve our rankings since we belong from academic side of the industry. However we later came to realize that we have been blocked from wikipedia. The agency is fired hence we can assure the spamming won't happen again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.76.87 (talk • contribs)

    How do you explain that you are using an IP in the same range as the SEO agency you hired to improve your rankings? And have you read WP:COI and m:Terms of use? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Thanks for having a look into our request. Sure, the agency operates from the same co working premise as we do. Yes have read them now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.212.151.175 (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @182.64.76.87: no Declined, per WP:BROTHER and lack of any credible reason to think it would be a useful source for Wikipedia. --Guy (help!) 21:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    famousbirthdays.com

    Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia: It can be useful as a source for information on birthdays, ages, and locations for articles about YouTubers.

    Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore: Blacklisting is no longer needed because because it could be a source of info about YouTubers containing ranks, ages, birthdates, locations and more! Famousbirthdays.com = more information. 2601:8B:C300:4A70:2074:7CC6:BDAE:539E (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done It doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and thus has no use here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instructions

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins


    Quick reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion

    .xyz

    The .xyz TLD is by way of being a frequent flyer here. There are some (but not many) that are usable (e.g. abc.xyz, Alphabet's domain) but the vast majority of existing and new links are at best crap and very often spam. I think we should blacklist the TLD and whitelist the handful of valid ones. Guy (help!) 19:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=959100751"