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 02:59, 24 April 2021 (→‎besgore.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 regex — 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 - 1019571589 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|1019571589#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|1019571589#section_name}}
    →A user-gadget for handling additions to and removals from the spam-blacklist is available at User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-blacklist-Handler


    Proposed additions


    tripprivacy.com

    This appears to be a Malaysian tour operator's website. The above-referenced IP has spammed it into the external-links sections of many food-related articles. See, e.g., [1], as well as all of the other contributions from the IP. Thanks for considering this. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that an IP (different from the above) attempted to blank this report. - MrOllie (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Julietdeltalima and MrOllie:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Julietdeltalima: Forgot to mention, handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    thefatherofhollywood.com

    Self published site (about a self published book) and associated blog. Not a reliable source. Has been added by a series of COI editors/sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keitrt/Archive, including replacing other source links with versions hosted on their own site. According to this vintage report from the COI noticeboard, COI editor has been adding this since 2007. - MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just know that Mr. Ollie does have some sort of interest he is hiding. The site has been up there for years and peaceful until he decided to attack H J Whitley. Assume he is an author of a self-published book, relative of H. H. Wilcox or CE Toberman. and declaring himself an expert. He is embarrassed. If it is true that you do not want any information about the Father of Hollywood please remove reference from every site on Wiki starting with C E Toberman. Strange that one person can cancel another. Where are the manages of Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.205.135 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wanted to let Mr. Ollie know I will be praying for him every day. May God bless all your truthful endeavors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.205.135 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Much appreciated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    chillibollywood.com

    Spam of garbage blog/scraper site, following the seo trick of swapping out for dead links. They've been warned on all three accounts and continued to spam. Ravensfire (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    pahadkikahani.com

    Appears to be a newer scraper/blog site that's being spammed moderately aggressively. Their about page [2] strongly suggests this is not a professional setup, same with the contact page [3]. Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    latestsarkarijobalert.com

    Spamming from at least four IPs over several months; plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    kiwifarms.net

    (Copied from meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Kiwi_Farms)

    [4] etc. This domain is to a forum (Kiwi Farms) which is a well known doxing/harassment site (described by its administration as a "gossip website"). As it's a forum, nothing on it is citeable. It is only ever added to harass article subjects in a BLP-offending way. Billinghurst didn't think there was enough evidence of a cross-wiki issue, so deferred it here. But there's at least an enwiki issue. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Psiĥedelisto: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Thanks for reporting this. — Newslinger talk 08:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative domains (Kiwi Farms)

    — Newslinger talk 05:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 05:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ourhero.in

    ourhero.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com This link appears to be the same as census2011.co.in (which is already listed). It is not the official government website rather it publishes the data released by government. I have seen many people add this website as a source for the demographics in the geographical articles related to India. I kindly request you to add this to the blacklist as it is not reliable. Thanks you! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 09:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hulged: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    meaww.com

    fitgirlrepacks.in

    At FitGirl. Nardog (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nardog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    sportsmatik.com

    One of the IP already blocked for spamming the wiki, unknown user continued it last year by using .147 range and it is present in some articles until now. I request you to please blacklist and remove all the spam with the help of bot. Thanks  Zoglophie 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Please note that there is no bot to automatically remove these, it has to be done manually. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    detec.in

    The username of "detecdevice" strongly suggests that the user has connection(s) with the website (domain name "detec") and has also spammed the link several times (Special:Diff/1015220944 Special:Diff/1015220724). However, the user itself has been blocked from editing. The IP also added several external links from this website. (Special:Diff/1015218720 Special:Diff/1015219419 Special:Diff/1015219797 Special:Diff/1015220535) Kind regards. —Twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 08:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Twotwofourtysix: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, no need to generate extra work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    irockersup.com.au

    Spamming campaign by multiple IPs with repeat copyright violations; plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    damplips.com

    A user vandalised a talk page by inserting a link to this porn site on it. There is no use for a porn site on Wikipedia. If a user clicks on this link, they will see things they can never unsee. Spare them the psychological damage and blacklist this smutty site, please. HelenDegenerate (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @HelenDegenerate: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist - COIBot says that it's been used a LOT for porn vandalism. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    vimeodownload.com

    Mickyskidy is behind another blacklisted website, and has persistently added links to vimeodownload.com, which looks very much like a knockoff site hosting copyright material without release. This site is of no encyclopaedic value. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    After removing my last edit i haven't added anymore link to Wikipedia so why blacklisting it Mickyskidy (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please blacklist this site - the link added in this edit is a copy-paste from this legit source and of course not even a courtesy link. Junk site that steals content. Ravensfire (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit, "I haven't spammed the copyright-violating site for an entire 24 hours, so why are you blacklisting it?" is a new one. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --GeneralNotability (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisted globally, and blocked Mickyskidy for good measure. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability, excellent, thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    bestbettingsites co uk

    See COIBot for previous spammers. Also:

    Same pattern of editing by throw-away accounts. Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary-url.com

    This website's been used to try and bypass our blacklist (as an example, on Draft:Pat Pharith to cite a blacklisted website); the site also seems somewhat suspicious. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jéské Couriano: if it is a redirect site, it goes on meta:  Defer to Global blacklist --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jéské Couriano: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    wikipedia.ind.in

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

    See Special:Diff/1017618158. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zppix:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    dhunt.in

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

    URL shortener for English wikipedia blacklisted site dailyhunt<dot>in (added MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2020#dailyhunt.in). [6]. Ravensfire (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    everythreeweekly.com

    everythreeweekly.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

    Like the Onion, it’s satire and thus should not be used on articles. --2600:1004:B085:CF22:BD2F:816B:B486:68C5 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it being spammed? I don't see any links to it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I am another IP but it’s not being spammed, it’s just satire.--2600:1004:B012:39A9:B5BE:4650:3D33:DF1E (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't preemptively blacklist every site that's not suitable as a reference. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @2600:1004:B085:CF22:BD2F:816B:B486:68C5: no Declined, no abuse shown. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    influencermarketinghub.com

    influencermarketinghub.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

    User-Generated content.--2600:1004:B012:39A9:B5BE:4650:3D33:DF1E (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    online-gambling.com

    online-gambling.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

    In cleaning up after this site I found what appears to be a pattern of its addition through throw-away accounts:

    The most recent addition was yesterday (LoganWN). Arllaw (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Arllaw: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Maybe it is worth to open an SPI to see if underlying IPs can be blocked and whether other related users (which may have spammed other links) show up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pampelonne for the complete sockfarm. @Arllaw: thanks for filing, are there any more domains that we need to blacklist? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    australiasevereweather.com

    australiasevereweather.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

    Malwarebytes identifies this website as a trojan. It's referenced in about 20 articles. Perhaps used to be valid but now taken over. Needs investigation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonies Chris (talk • contribs)

    123telugumoviehd.com

    123telugumoviehd.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

    Third IP (at least) spamming this site, plus the two named users (at least). Time for the Clue-by-four. Ravensfire (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    zivallo.pk

    zivallo.pk: 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

    Self published 'news' blog. Not a reliable source. Syedmehmood11 self identified as the site owner, and was blocked in March. IP edits since then have likely been block evasion. - MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    viXRa.org

    vixra.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

    A pre-print service known for holding papers mostly in the fringe science area. If there anything valid in it, it would be better cited to the journal where it actually got published (per WP:PAYWALL, there's no problem if the source is not freely accessible). It's been used by the user linked here to promote some really bollocks claims about astronomical bodies, and I'm sure they're not the only ones - pre-prints are generally discouraged, and a pre-print service specialising in junk science should get the blacklist treatment... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done a clean-up of the few links in articles. There's a lot more on talk pages, but these are harmless for the time being; we just ought to discourage future use - if there's an exceptional paper which can be cited directly to there, that can be dealt via case-by-case whitelist. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    besgore.com

    bestgore.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

    Please blacklist per this RfC. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @RandomCanadian: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Thanks for closing the RfC. — Newslinger talk 02:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    b00k.gr

    b00k.gr: 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

    Hello, the link b00k.gr/files/recommended_book.php?lang=en&page=golden_bough&background=light with the following description The Golden Bough – Selected Extracts Substantial parts of the complete work, including the rarely available chapter “The Crucifixion of Christ” (with changeable background for easier reading)

    was blocked from wikipedia. This particular chapter, for obvious reasons (not in accordance with christian cosmology) is almost unavailable on the net, even in pdf’s containing Frazer’s chapter ‘Scrapegoat’ - this part is just left out even if it shouldn’t. Apart from that, I spent a significant amount of time and effort to create an html summary of the Golden bough, because of the importance of the work. Ordering the book from abroad, I even had to write manually some of its parts myself because they couldn’t be found on the web. And, finally, I also translated alone most of its parts for the first time in greek – many many hours spent here. Generally, I believe this html version of its most important parts, has a greater advantage over the huge pdf’s available on the web, and that it offers a great “extra” to all available presentations of the work. You might argue that if someone wants to find what is included in the link he can, but someone else might also ask what is Wikipedia needed for, since everything it says can be found elsewhere in the web? Well, it makes things easier.

    I believe this page and this site shouldn’t be in any ‘blacklist’. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.255.13.60 (talk • contribs)

     Not done I believe that you've spammed this site all over the place, which is why it's blacklisted globally, not just here.  Defer to Global blacklist. Good luck. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend eight books on my site, to be read, and for 5 of them, to which no copyright is valid any longer (‘Animal Farm’, ‘The golden bough’, ‘Totem and taboo’, ‘The happy prince’ and ‘Dialogue in hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu’) I upload for months on my site selected extracts to make it easier for someone to know what these books are saying, not as a summary, but a comprehensive overview of the complete work using characteristic extracts which allow you to get a substantial knowledge of the book in little time. [on page b00k.gr/files/recommended.php?lang=en&background=light ]

    After many months of work and of choosing and forming the data I thought of placing some links in the wikipedia, because to me they are in a much better html format, than all other available. To you, it might be called “spam” because it isn’t a renowned effort with a significant, ‘heavy’ signature [as ‘Project Gutenberg’ or ‘Google Books’ or anything like that - which do something similar but on a greater scale than an individual]. To me it is called love for these books, much more than any ‘project’, or any ‘company’ has for them. To you, and to them, these books are numbers, so do as you wish and allow their links on your “external links” for they obviously don’t ‘spam’ your site, but I thought wikipedia would be more “democratic”. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.255.13.60 (talk • contribs)

    @141.255.13.60: not blacklisted locally,  Defer to Global blacklist to request global removal, or  Defer to Whitelist to ask for local whitelisting of specific links. But since this was added everywhere, the democratically chosen admins executed the democratically defined policies and guidelines, and hence democratically blacklisted it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for answering, I will contact them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.255.13.60 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    mschf.xyz

    mschf.xyz: 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

    I did the research and see that the consensus here is that xyz domain names contain too much spam to be freely allowed. This particular site is the home page for an art group; subject of the article MSCHF. If this could be whitelisted it would be appreciated.--- Possibly (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems reasonable, but whitelist is here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, this isn't where I renew my parking permit?--- Possibly (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I have posted it in the right place now. --- Possibly (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    tripprivacy.com - removal

    tripprivacy.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

    I think the website should not be on the blacklist. It was adding some value and more information about Food In Malaysia. And the post was adding more information about more foods. post like included. www.tripprivacy.com/food-in-malaysia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.202.35.212 (talk • contribs)

     Defer to Global blacklist As you can see in the recent request above, it was deferred to our global list for blacklisting because of your cross-wiki efforts. Good luck. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The intent could never been to cross wiki efforts. I hope to review the request again— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:FC89:5E:4537:BFDC:B038:330:81DF (talk • contribs)

    I see you already delete many websites from blocklist and they don't even apply to be removed from blacklist. I wish you consider that tripprivacy.com that you will remove later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:FC88:5:920B:731C:966E:8935:D79F (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, all the links were removed as they were deemed unsuitable. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes Dirk but the website still on the blacklist. Can you remove it ?

    Yes Dirk but the website still on the blacklist. Can you remove it ? Nancy Jemer (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No; for the last time it is not blacklisted here, but rather blacklisted on Meta.wikimedia.org, which is a different site. However, they're not going to remove it there either because (1) you spammed the heck out of it all over multiple wikis and (2) it's useless for any of our projects. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    dyingscene.com - removal

    I am trying to create a page for the band Krum Bums and attempted to cite an interview that was published on Dying Scene's website, but it appears to be blacklisted due to "repeat spamming of NN zine" in November 2009. I wondered what that was in reference to and if the interview link might be taken off the blacklist. The website contains vital information for the band's bibliographic information.

    Thehistorian17 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist Per previous removal discussions (which you can find if you search the archives), this site was the subject of several spam campaigns in the past, and is unlikely to be removed unless a case is made by a trusted, high-volume editor. For your purposes of adding a particular link, whitelisting should suffice. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    pv-magazine.com

    This website which offers useful information on solar power and the solar industry appears to be blocked by accident due to \bpv-magazine\.com\b being blacklisted. Is there any way to ensure that the URL will be usable again? --Ildottoreverde (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not accidentally blacklisted; see the many entries in the archives; most recently, here. As with previous requests,  Defer to Whitelist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ildottoreverde, it has useful information that it regurgitates from the original source. Only very little information on this site is original. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If we held all sources to this standard, Wikipedia would be a much smaller, or at least much less sourced website. Note that most newspapers these days largely "regurgitate" agency bulletins and press releases. But you do you, while the solar power articles remain current as of 2008. --Ildottoreverde (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ildottoreverde, we do have that standard, we remove primary sources / replace them with proper sources. Moreover, this was, heavily, spammed, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Mar_1#User:Paulzubrinich, which does not happen for other sources. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That spam happened 10 years ago and came from a single user. Clearly the reason the website is still on the blacklist has nothing to do with spam. Finally I don't see how the accusation that the website "regurgitates" information found elsewhere can be a violation of the standard against primary sources. If anything, it could be considered a tertiary source - and I've yet to see any evidence that it's not a reliable one. --Ildottoreverde (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ildottoreverde, I see you missed the 'the many entries in the archives', but well. And that spam happened 10 years ago is hardly ever an argument (5 years was certainly not enough). And you clearly did not read the thread, I see 9 there alone.
    Most of the cases discussed result in an alternative link being proposed. I guess we will have to discuss that specific link you need at the whitelist. Or you manage to get a consensus that this is a universally useful site through a discussion on WP:RSN. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    After seeing the phalanx of admins defending the ban with circular reasoning, I've decided to do something more useful with my life.--Ildottoreverde (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unreasonable approach by wikipedia to ban sources that inform on mining activities and energy production worldwide.73.240.74.203 (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    econlib.org

    This is a legitimate site to use for references, apparently added because of spam by a paid editor, but that doesn't justify putting the entire site on the blacklist. It looks like previous requests to remove it were declined for ideological reasons, which is highly disturbing. ("It's a libertarian think tank and therefore an unreliable source.") The spam blacklist should not be abused to censor a particular point of view. (I am not a fan of libertarianism, for the record; I am a fan of NPOV.) — Omegatron (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Omegatron, it was spammed by a paid editing ring with a conflict of interest. That alone is enough reason to blacklist it. Almost all information that is there can be found elsewhere, often even on our own wikisource. For the rare cases where information is really nowhere else it can be whitelisted, and that is enough to keep it blacklisted. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice you attempted to use their blog, not the material elsewhere hosted on the site. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra
    1. Why is that reason to blacklist it? The spam blacklist should only be used for spam, for domains that have no valid uses. This domain is clearly not a spam domain. Bad editing should be handled using blocks and other tools.
    2. I didn't attempt to use anything myself, but all the references on this page should be allowed.
    3. These links can't be found elsewhere, I checked to see if there were any mirrors and there aren't.
    4. Do you mean that "econlog" is the blog? Can that be whitelisted, at least? — Omegatron (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Omegatron, Sorry, I said 'it was spammed by a paid editing ring with a conflict of interest'. The spam blacklist is to protect against spamming. Websites are not spam, the behaviour of inappropriately promoting is the problem. Websites are not spam. If the website owners of CNN would start inappropriately pushing their links cnn.com becomes spam. Now, for CNN there are a massive number of other uses outweighing that spam, and we would likely have to resort to other measures to curb that. Here, however, we are talking about an almost completely replaceable repository of out-of-copyright material (and even if it is not replaceable, it is not an obligation to link to an online copy per sé, linking to the original hard copy works equally well), and a blog (which, with exceptions, do generally not make good reliable sources). The only unique material on the site is whitelisted.
      Yes, you did, you attempted to add the blog links. Now, I can see that for that page they make good primary references (though that page is then heavily dependent on primary sourcing, blog posts, and similar), and yes, for that links can be whitelisted. I do not think that the blog is of general use (and the blog was also part of the spamming by the editing ring), I would therefore suggest to get those specific links whitelisted for this goal:  Defer to Whitelist (sorry for the bureaucracy, but that makes it more transparent and easier to log). Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Beetstra, it should be noted that the econlib spammer was also largely responsible for the pre-redirect version of the article in question, and for the assiduous promotion of Bryan Caplan on Wikipedia. This request is essentially to whitelist Vipul's spam on one of Vipul's articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      JzG, I noticed, as well as that the article was largely referenced to primary / blog sources. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, regarding 'block and other tools', we are not here to play whack-a-mole with sockpuppets and IP farms. Where possible we would, but if we are handling a paid-editing ring of editors (editors whose 'job' it is to make sure that the spam stays), blocks are not going to cut the deal. They will just make another account and continue. It pays their bills. The only way to stop that is to make sure that they can't spam anymore. Yes, that may land websites that have some limited use on the blacklist, but that is why we have a whitelist to ensure that the use we allow is appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra: Ok, but using the spam blacklist to deal with bad user behavior is like using a bomb to kill a mouse. It's causing a lot of collateral damage to people who should be able to post legitimate links to those domains, and have to go through this tedious process to get every individual link whitelisted. It would be better if users who have proven themselves to not be spammers could just add links like this directly (while the spam blacklist was only used for actual spam, malware, etc.)
    CNN should not be added to the blacklist either, just because someone is abusing it. (I doubt that it would actually get added, anyway. The abuse would be dealt with in a less harmful way.)
    I see what you mean by "attempting to add the blog links", but I didn't add them myself; I was trying to revert to a previous version that had them.
    Anyway, I will try the whitelist... — Omegatron (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Omegatron, we clearly assessed that here. Most links are clearly replaceable, and blog links have a very limited use. Collateral damage is hence small, this is one of the very few pages that carries these links. Note that some heavily abused websites do also have legitimate use. Accounts are cheap, IP addresses more so. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra: In what sense are the links "replaceable"? They are the only URLs that point to this content that I can find. Can you give an example of a "replacement" link for the banned references? — Omegatron (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Omegatron, yes, that is the blog that is not replaceable. There is other material outside the blog that is replaceable. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, and the blog is, of course, a blog, so not a RS. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a think-tank, not a library: its mission is to promote libertarian thought. Virtually all references to econlib can be (and have been) replaced with neutral archives like Gutenberg. Removing this site from the blacklist will require periodic time-consuming cleanup, as was needed before - Vipul was only one of the agenda editors spamming this. It should remain on the blacklist. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Noting that there is a direct connection between Vipul and Caplan (i.e. Vipul has a conflict of interest), and that Vipul was running a (albeit declared) paid editing ring. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ADL.org

    Trying to put a page in, I realized they were blacklisted somehow. I can only assume this was a mistake, as it’s a reputable organization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a1c0:6d40:7d60:fdf5:824f:3456 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ADL isn't blacklisted and you didn't hit the blacklist, what is the exact url you were trying to use? TAXIDICAE💰 20:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are attempting to add https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/17/why-the-u-a-e-is-calling-2-american-groups-terrorists/. Link directly to the WaPo, with https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/17/why-the-u-a-e-is-calling-2-american-groups-terrorists/, and your edit will save. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2021 (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.



    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Protected edit request on 21 April 2021

    iplt20

    Official Website of Indian Premier League has been blocked. i.e. iplt20

    So unable to cite references about Official News, Press releases etc., So either I need permission to edit or the block has been removed. Kirubar (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kirubar: please read the instructions at the top of this page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1019571589"