MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2020

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/

This is a "radical Islamic website". Providing disinformation about the Caucasus region/world. I've also asked about this page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kavkaz_Center_.28everyone_can_help.21.29 to get opinions/experience from other users about this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.85.208 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stale
. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

adherents

adherents.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

Website lists information without citing most of it, many of the figures look inflated. It has an overuse as a source on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations and should be added to the block list so credible sources can be used. Mokaiba11 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stale
. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skinhale.com

skinhale.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

Editor(s) from at least 2 IP ranges have repeatedly added links to Acrochordon under a new heading of "Natural Treatment"
Jonathanfu (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

www.batteryuniversity.com

This request is to add the above website to the blacklist. This website had been used as citations to support various dubious claims made in articles related to battery technology (mainly lithium based rechargeable batteries). This request is made following a discussion at Talk:Lithium-ion battery#Dubious information originating from discredited source (plus subsequent threads and other discussions linked from that talk page) where there is a consensus that this source was not a reliable source. To recap: this request occurs for the following reasons.

  • There is no organisation such as a 'battery university' in existence (and why would there be?).
  • The website is a self published source run by one Isidor Buchmann solely to promote his book (both the book and the website have been discredited).
  • The website does not have the support or backing of any third party authority on batteries beyond Cadex International (of which Isidor Buchmann himself is the CEO).
  • Very few of the claims presented at that website are supported by any manufacturer of batteries. Of the remaining claims, none are supported by anyone else except from sources that have clearly obtained the information from batteryuniversity.
  • Real world batteries seem to be unaware of the many limitations that Buchmann has ascribed to them. For example: according to Buchmann no lithium based battery could possible have a life exceeding 2 years wereas in reality serviceable examples older than 20 years are known to exist.
  • Almost all the claims have been trawled from forums around the internet (such forums not being acceptable citations in their own right - per WP:ELNO). Indeed one of the 'claims' was planted by myself and some colleagues to prove this very point - it appeared at batteryuniversity within 3 weeks).

Although there are no specific users who are using this web site to facilitate an edit war, nevertheless it has been used by several users to support claims from that website (in fairness: probably in good faith). This may well come about because a Google search for any battery related query often turns up batteryuniversity in the first two or three hits (along with Wikipedia). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that www.batteryuniversity.com appears to carry misleading information. I quote from my own contribution to the article Talk page some months ago:

A source to help judge the reliability or otherwise of batteryuniversity: batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries says (as of the date of this comment) in an article with title "How to Prolong Lithium-based Batteries": "The author of this essay does not depend on the manufacturer’s specifications alone but also listens to user comments. BatteryUniversity.com is an excellent sounding board to connect with the public and learn about reality. This approach might be unscientific, but it is genuine. When the critical mass speaks, the manufacturers listen. The voice of the multitude is in some ways stronger than laboratory tests performed in sheltered environments." In other words, information is derived from manufacturers' specifications and unverified comments by anybody rather than tests—what Wikipedia would class as a blog. Pol098, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The misinformation in the batteryuniversity Web site (picked up and repeated in many other places), is not just technically in breach of Wikipedia guidelines, but has cost me time, money, and bad decisions. Pol098 (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.opindia.com

Please blacklist this propaganda webiste as it is known for spreading hatred and to inflame the communal issues.Edward Zigma (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support Opindia has in past been discussed at RSN where the consensus was that it is not a reliable source. see Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard archives (1, 2). Considering the fact that this site readily peddles prapaganda and fake news in support of the ruling party in India, I strongly support this proposal to block the addition of the links from this site on wikipedia. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stale
(already blacklisted). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techbigs

Link
Spammers

Please blacklist. -KH-1 (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communities Digital news

Per [1], unanimous consensus to blacklist this fake news website. Guy (help!) 12:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 20:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Bunch of sneaky spam-via-refs

Group 1:

Group 2:

These appear to be related to the sockfarm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timlaieditor. Worked my way through a bunch of COIBot reports to see who was adding what, then using that to find more spam accounts. All of these domains are getting inserted as "refs" by spam accounts and do not appear to be legitimate additions. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of these appear to be xwiki spam, will  Defer to Global blacklist (and start on an SPI). --GeneralNotability (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've added phishprotection.com, efirbet.com, allthingshair.com, and duocircle.com to the global blacklist. Vermont (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added cutlery4all to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (it's enwiki-only). --GeneralNotability (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rationcardgov.in

Recurring blog spammer (misusing a deceptive URL). Previous warnings have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

upcomingmoviesnow.com

Looks like a recent flare-up. Most additions have been reverted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

newschant.com

newschant.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

Being spammed quite a lot by various IPs. SmartSE (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-KH-1 (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sarkari-info.com

sarkari-info.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

plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

holistictechnologies.com.pk

holistictechnologies.com.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

@GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4everwhite.com

Previously reported in early June, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2020#4everwhite.com. At that point there had been no additions, but yesterday and today the accounts and IPs above have been refspamming it into a few different articles – looks like burner accounts created to add the link to one article each, pretty much. --bonadea contributions talk 22:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I really thought that was going be a racist link. Kuru (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

filmplace.co

plus Added Spamming after several warnings and blocks. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

business.devilhunter.net

One user repeatedly cited this particular website (https), possible conflict of interest. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's one user doing the spamming, that can be handled via spam warnings (I just gave them one), and a block if necessary. We usually don't blacklist unless multiple users or IPs are involved. Good catch though, I just cleaned them all up; basically recycled press releases.OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblocking hubpages.com

1. I'm requesting that hubpages.com be unblocked from WikiPedia 2. HubPages is one of the largest user generated sites and now has editors doing extensive fact checking on many of the most popular articles that could be resources for many articles here. 3. The two main articles to be updated are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squidoo (acquired by HubPages) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HubPages 4. I am an employee of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauledmondson (talk • contribs)

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request for unblocking our External Link

Hello Sir,

Greetings for the day!!!

This is to bring to your kind notice that our website's External Link is blocked on Wikipedia. Our Wikipedia Page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infibeam.

We, request you to kindly unblock our site: Infibeam.com. Due to unknown reasons this link is blocked and shows in the Spam Blacklist.

Infibeam.com is an authorized Indian e-commerce company. We provide our customers with best deals and make their hectic life easy with the online shopping facility from their homes or offices. Any customer that visits Wikipedia will be able to go to our home site link directly and would not have to face the any problem for searching the link through Wikipedia.

We assure that we will abide by the content policies of your sites in the future to avoid any such issues.

I am an Employee of Infibeam.com. I work here as a Content Writer. I have been assigned with the responsibility to take care of the Wikipedia page of our site. Therefore kindly request you to take this mail into your consideration and solve this problem at your earliest.

Kind Regards Rachna Rawat Content Writer

(Redacted).

{{denied}}, the link was used for advertising, and from what you say, that was the intention. We do not provide shopping links. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

www.northerntransmissions.com in spam

Hello! My name is Yuri. I am working for music magazine "Northern Transmissions". I was trying to create a page for this magazine for wikipedia, i was playing with posting some stuff and the page got to spam list. Actually, that's true, it was not format encyclopedia format, but we changed it.

If it's possible, could you please remove this address from spam list, i think this page is good for wikipedia for several reasons:

1) Helps people to communicate with music 2) Helps people to learn a new things about music in the world 3) Supporting music business

list: en-wikipedia blacklist \bnortherntransmissions\.com\b I kindly appreciate your decision, thanks for your time,

Cheers, Yuri— Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriChicago (talk • contribs) 05:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{denied}}, the link was used for advertising, and from what you say, that was the intention. We do not provide shopping links, or support businesses DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblocking of earpixels.com

Hello, wikipedia's adminstrator.. I own a website named as earpixels.com and my website is nomore available to be added on wikiepdia...it was the first time when i tried to add a link of my website in any portion of wikiepdia...it show sthe link is reported several times before...i just want to request you to remove it from blacklist..as i never have added i before to wikipedia...and yes i am sure that...any user of my website might have done this thing....intentionally to gain more followers..at his or her profile of earpixels....but please tell me..and forgive my website as i never have done mistake and have never violated any term of wikipedia..!! my website is actually a music social network...so i am sure some users might have added their profile links to wikipedia..but was it my mistake or mistake of my website..no..it wasn't !! please review...THNX! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.99.27 (talk • contribs)

no Declined This is a disingenuous request. Over the last week or so, IP-hoppers have been spamming this earpixels site approximately once per day to various articles related to Indian actors. There was also a previous flurry of disruption from a sock operator. The notion that this IP editor just happened to notice that he was added to the blacklist within a day of being added, is ridiculous, and should not be believed. The complaining IP above also attempted to use a link shortener to continue his disruption. "forgive my website as i never have done mistake and have never violated any term of wikipedia..!!" Yeah right. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unblock sh.st

Why did you guys ban this link? I was going to post this link and it was leading to an organizationi but I can't because of this. Please un-ban this link. It would be greatly appreciated.

The cause is for supporting a person who died, and It would be greatly appreciated if I could post the organizations link. It will be the reader's choice whether or not they will donate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123nutshell123 (talk • contribs)

no Declined - 123nutshell123, when you say "I was going to post this link", I think what you mean is "I already posted this link and it was removed as spam." This is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertisements, which is what "You can support Rob Ford's Family here" is. Further, it looks to me like you were using a pay-per-click link shortener, which looks an awful lot like an attempt to drum up money off of Rob Ford's death. That would certainly be unethical, even if it weren't spammy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gocinema.in

gocinema.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

It has come to our attention that our site has been blacklisted on Wikipedia. This apparently because of the following two reasons.

Primarily, an arbitrary account has been found repeatedly using 'gocinema' as a reference to add information. The links we reviewed that appeared on Wikipedia are genuine news links. We are not aware of why our site was used to cite these facts. In-dubiously,we do not consider that as a reason to penalize the site for posting genuine news content.

@Cyphoidbomb has stated that ‘It appears to be yet another faceless Indian blog. Main page is an endless wall of posts’. None of the statements hold any relevance, besides appear as vacuous vandalism.‘gocinema’ is a private limited company which is set up for more than 2 years. The company is sanguine about its authenticity. The site aims at providing news, assessments and evaluations of motion pictures and song albums for movie enthusiasts. The source of our content is genuine and original as it is either provided directly from the movie production houses or from our editorial team.

The company further disapproves the second charge stating ‘Their GoCinema Exclusive is useless’. A cursory look at the site will amply indicate that the ‘Gocinema Exclusive’ are aggregation of feature articles, related to motion pictures of a particular language. The 'About' section of any and every other movie contains detailed information, which has been ignored.

'gocinema' aims at providing veritable entertainment information. The platform is a genuine compendium which delightfully feeds the interests of movie enthusiasts.

The company requests for its removal from ‘:Spamblacklist’ and will also look into the process of being listed in the RSN, as we are a genuine source of movie information for multiple Indian languages.

From Soumi Dhar, Content Manager - Gocinema Product of Sky10 Social Media Pvt Ltd.

Soumi22dhar (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2017 (IST)

Soumi Dhar Soumi22dhar (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock My Link

www.resumevogue.com has been blocked Due to unknown spam policy of Wikipedia It got blocked. I have created wiki id from the site name and when I try to edit references link I got ban.I am not a spammer and I was not using Wikipedia for advertising . I have read all the spam policy of Wikipedia . Please remove this site from Wikipedia local blacklist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganpati Baba (talk • contribs) 10:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rns.online

I am getting a blacklist message when I try to submit a link from the Russian agency Rambler News Service. However, the domain (rns.online) doesn't come up in the tool that shows if it is meta or local. The article I'm working on is Sergei Gorkov but I feel it should be unblocked anyway. Rambler is like Yahoo for Russia and their news agency is sort of an aggregator of Russian news stories. I'm not aware that it's been involved in anything shady, so I think it's the .online that is blocking it. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request To Remove themagzone.com From Blacklist.

Hi, I am the owner of themagzone.com where we do several contents on recent issues and even do several celebrity interviews.

I am unaware of the cause of being blocked but I would definitely like to add some value to wiki celeb pages by putting information and excerpts from the interviews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jal_(band), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapan_Saxena are some pages where the links will be used.

I will personally look into the cause of block. I assume the reason must be because of some activities by our employees or any of our competitors.

I am attaching the facebook page of our company just to ensure the authenticity and to give an idea of kind of content we are into. (facebook.com/themagzone)

Just to explain, The MagZone is an online platform which publishes about recent happenings, events, social issues and our opinions about them. We also conduct several celebrity interviews, and surveys about opinions of the general public on the issues that matter to them.

I hope a positive response. It would be a great favor.

Apologies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.157.150 (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

removing a blocked link

Hello i am writing about a site for music lyrics.The owner of the site is no longer the same. The site is having a new owner and it was terrifaing to understood that Listn.to was blocked from wikipedia.A week ago we tried to make a biography of bulgarian jazz musicians Alex & Vladi and then we found that Listn.to link to the site is blocked.Plese help us and remove the Listn.to website from the blocked esternal.. links


The site is called Listn.to


And Here is the Biography that we wanted to post in wikipedia :— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvalentinov (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Remove beatthefish.com from Spam Blacklist

  1. I would like to request that beatthefish.com be removed from the blacklist at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist
  2. With Beat The Fish, I have extensively covered the live and online poker industry since 2005. I'm an independent voice that covers important legislative developments in the regulated global poker industry, current events on the live poker tournament circuit, and player fairness concerns. I regularly publish news stories on current poker-related events and have been manually approved for the Google News platform. I believe my articles could help corroborate facts on many Wikipedia pages related to poker and the overall online poker industry.
  3. Examples of Wikipedia pages that Beat The Fish could be used as references on would include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_of_Poker as I cover every annual WSOP event with extensive coverage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_poker as I provide coverage on specific online poker developments, and even industry company pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BetOnline as I write extensively on the background and additions of poker and gambling-related companies. I have no plan to add in my website to any Wikipedia page, but I also don't want it in the blacklist where other editors wouldn't have the flexibility to do so if they felt a Beat The Fish page would make a useful addition.
  4. I am the owner of beatthefish.com. I am honestly unsure of why my domain was ever added to this blacklist as I have a long history of white-hat content and practices. I've tried to narrow down the cause, and the best I can guess is that an SEO agency I've previously used edited in my domain without my approval. I have never made an edit to a Wikipedia page and, if you have a way to check that with my IP, you can verify that yourself. I've really worked hard for more than 13 years to write and promote my content the right way. I also believe the fact that I was approved for Google News shows that. I've never spammed the web in any form and if you investigate my website, I'm confident you would agree. I appreciate your consideration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatthefish (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting hidemyass.com to be removed from blacklist

I’m associated with HideMyAss!, and have recently submitted a Wikipage to articles for creation [2]. In my initial attempt to submit, I got a message saying that the page included a URL link hidemyass.com which is a site registered on Wikipedia’s blacklist. I suspect that it got blacklisted because it has "ass" in the URL. I would like to ask that this URL be removed from the blacklist as this is a legitimate site and company and the URL would be used in the recently submitted article.Empey at Avast (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblocking navymutual.org

navymutual.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

I would like to formally request that navymutual.org be removed from the blacklist. Blocked in 2012, the activity that caused said block did not originate from the company itself, and no such activity has occurred since then. The URL is critical to the Wikipedia page of "Navy Mutual Aid Association", and may indeed provide value on other pages that, presently, mention Navy Mutual (AAFMAA, Life insurance, List of veterans organizations, Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance). Thank you for your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.46.34 (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock staterecords.org

Hi, Our site staterecords.org was blacklisted. We have a hired a SEO company which were spamming Wikipedia by adding a links from our subdomains.

At the moment we are not working with them and our site is one of the biggest in United States which provides the access to public records in all states of America.

We have some valuable information. For example: staterecords.org/whatinformationisincludedinthearrestrecord.php california.staterecords.org/understandingthegoldenstatescriminaljusticesystem.php

We don't want to add more links to Wikipedia...

Thanks in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGarkaviy (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Wikifinancepedia.com

1. Website: wikifinancepedia 2. Reason: Our site is quite an older domain and have valuable articles. Many people trust wikifinancepedia for personal finance and financial planning. And the content does not violates any copyrights rule. 3. Articles like: Finance, Financial Planning, Financial Management, Personal Finance where the links were used. 4. At this point.

But since it was considered as spamming then we will not add any further links to wikipedia. Appreciate all your efforts in advance. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.243.82.177 (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove block on my site spiritualsadhana.com

unblock some sites for better experience of user or publisher in Wikipedia to avail profit of publishing

It happened to be a mistake or violated rules but site spiritualsadhana.com has been in block mode. This site has good content on astrology which can be worth to share on wiki astrology pages. Please consider unblocking it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sritulasi1 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user left me a message and I provided the link to where on meta whitelisting or removal can be requested (the global blacklist). —PaleoNeonate – 19:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from blacklist request

helpaxis.com has been blacklisted from Wikipedia due to self-promotion words on the username: Amooroy. Please help to remove this website from the Wikipedia backlist. It's affecting the website SERP ranking. Please know that I do not intend to offer any promotional words on Wikipedia. I'm the only person managing both the blog and the SEO and i was only trying to create a Wikipedia page. Please help to remove the website on Wikipedia backlist as more care will put in place to avoid this from occurring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amooroy (talk • contribs)

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking of Expres.online (previously expres.ua)

Hello,

I was trying to edit the article 2014 Ukrainian revolution, where I was trying to replace a depreciated source (a Daily Mail link) with a more reliable source: the Ukrainian newspaper Ekspres, which I have found to be reliable through (admittedly not much research, but nothing I have seen suggests it is unreliable) research. However, when I went to replace the source, I was met with an error stating that the website was blocked - apparently due to the .online part of the URL. The webpage I was trying to source can be found here: expres.online/archive/digest/2014/02/24/102431-leninopad-komunistychnogo-vozhdya-zvilneno-vzhe-90-mist-ukrayiny

This site benefits Wikipedia through reporting of news that can generally be considered reliable, and able to be used as a source for many articles beyond the Ukrainian revolution. If it is blocked for a reason other than its .online link, please let me know.

Thank you.

Secondhand Work 12:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stale
--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove ShuftiPro from wikipedia local blacklist

Hi, I request Wikipedia admins to remove Shufti Pro from the local blacklist.

Below is the information required for unblocking request:

website address: shuftipro.com

The reason(s) why links to the site should be allowed, and would benefit Wikipedia:

It has some really good resources (blogs, news) that would add value to Wikipedia. The information on Wikipedia is always in the process of improvement so linking to the information provided by industry experts on relevant articles will prove to be a valuable addition to the information on Wikipedia. Shufti Pro is an active member on Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. It’s content will add value to Wikipedia.

Also, none of the entities who used Shufti Pro’s name are officially connected to it. So it would be fair to remove it from the blacklist.

The article or articles on which the links would be used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer#KYB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_verification_service


If you are connected to the site, then please declare this at this point. Failure to do so will, if discovered, be treated negatively.

Yes, I'm connected to Shufti Pro, indirectly. They requested me to create a Wikipedia page for them. It will help people gain first-hand knowledge about the company. As Wikipedia is a source for all it is a superior place for a company to exhibit its information.

I am a third-party source of Shufti Pro and assure you that the information provided by me will be unbiased and just to help the masses have a ready source to know Shufti Pro when looking for it online. Ruby049 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruby049: no Declined. --GeneralNotability (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Unblock roshandaan.com

Sir/Madam

My website roshandaan.com is blocked on Wikipedia due to some policy violations. I am unaware of these policies. Please unblock it. I will be very thankful to you. Next time, I will not violate any policies. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by नरेन-सिंह (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove My Website From Blacklist

okguri.blogspot.com is my blog. My blog has been put on the blacklist of Wikipedia on 24 March 2020.

plz REMOVE this.

From now on I will keep in mind the mistake I have made. I follow your policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3973:44C0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are insufficient as references at Wikipedia, so it's unclear how the removal of your blog from the blacklist would benefit Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello Cyphoidbomb. I will share good information on Wikipedia through my website and blog. I will be sharing important information on Wikipedia in the future. I request you That you remove my blog Okguri.blogspot.com from the blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3961:4565:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, blogs are insufficient as references at Wikipedia, so there is no clear justification for why we should unblock your spammed, unsuitable site. Any attempts to add it at Wikipedia would be totally useless here. See our reliable sourcing guidelines and specifically WP:UGC. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request that a site be removed from the blocked list entirely

1. bangla-love-sms.com 2. Someone doing spam with my site, this site is very popular in bangladesh and there is huge information so wikipedia get a value from it. 3. https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE 4. I am admin of this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.205.92 (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking website hireukrainiandevelopers.com

Dear Sir/Madam,

Today I was trying to contribute to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lviv about IT outsourcing as well as our website hireukrainiandevelopers.com has an article with current data on this topic (hireukrainiandevelopers.com/blog/why-clients-choose-lviv-for-it-outsourcing-research/)

I am working as a Marketing Manager at HUD and was surprised to see that our website is blocked prnt.sc/s55517

I would kindly ask you to remove our website from the blacklist, as we work on the creation of unique and useful content which may also be a good contribution to Wikipedia sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.249.96 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I appreciate your transparency, but since you not only work for this website, but are also the marketing manager, you have a dual conflict of interest, which is a significant ethical issue. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising, and I don't think a marketing manager would be able to objectively find legitimate uses for this website at Wikipedia. Further, the site doesn't meet journalistic standards, so it's unclear how it could be used in a way that doesn't contravene our reliable sourcing guidelines. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cyphoidbomb,

As well as we've discussed this issue, may our company ask about deleting this ticket from current page?

Thanks in advance, HUD team— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhireez (talk • contribs)

 Not done Site has no legitimate use on Wikipedia, and we don't remove sites on the request of site owners. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

site (Mintsofindia.com) be removed from the block list entirely

Hello Wikipedia Team, I Want to Say you that My Website Link is in Wikipedia Blocklist. So Please My site be removed from the block list entirely.

My Website Link - Mintsofindia.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techly360 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Techly360:  Not done. You've provided no explanation for why this site should be unblocked, and I can't see any reason why a blog would be suitable for inclusion at Wikipedia. See WP:UGC. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Techly360: as you have now spammed a second site of yours, I have blocked the account (also a username issue). Please stop spamming your personal websites and blogs here. GermanJoe (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yourstory.com

Please unblock yourstory.com site from Wikipedia. Why this website publishes the world's news. If you want, You can also search in the news section of Google. And yourstory founder is Shradha Sharma. Whose Wikipedia article mentions Wikipedia as the founder. Please unblock. Mr. Bikaneri (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OP is blocked as a sockpuppet. Also, yourstory.com is a PR platform with unreliable promotional sobstories for startups - has no place as source in an encyclopedia. GermanJoe (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mindmajix

Mindmajix is an online education portal, which has been providing valuable technology related content to the users across world Since 2013. This site blacklisted in 2019 March due to some unexpected link building activities by some of our ex-employees here. Previously our employees reportedly done spam link building activity with out considering warnings from wikipedia & with out intimate to us. spam link search . My request is to remove Mindmajix from blacklist. We never repeat such a stupid kind of mistakes in future. Consider that we are one of the best education provider across world.(Learn more about us in the Internet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjaneyulu.appmajix (talk • contribs)

@Anjaneyulu.appmajix: no Declined. First, this is globally blacklisted, so we can’t remove it here. Secondly, we will hardly ever consider removal requests from site owners. Links may be removed if long-term, trusted editors show a need for the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request our website be un-blacklisted

Hi,

I want to disclose up front that I work for the Confucius Institute U.S. Center in Washington, D.C. It was recently brought to our attention that our site ciuscenter.org was blocked from being used as a source on Wikipedia, unbeknownst to us. We are not sure why we are blocked, but what I can say is that in doing so Wikipedia's coverage on Confucius Institutes has been extremely misleading, inaccurate, and biased against the Confucius Institute program as a whole. Specifically, the page reads like a laundry list of unsubstantiated accusations against institutes (many of which were disproved by a nonpartisan GAO report from last yearyear that conveniently, has been seldom cited) or an attempt to vent frustrations with the CCP without providing any substantiated information about what Institutes actually do, the universities who actually run them, what their programs are like, and what is actually covered in individual CI program's curriculum.

It is not in the stated mission of Wikipedia to let their pages operate like hit pieces or to be weaponized in this manor-where our critics are able to publicly asking for transparency in bad faith, knowing our attempts to be transparent have preemptively been blocked from being cite-able on your website. This gives the false impression that we are not engaging with criticism or are unwilling to change as a result of it.

We are not asking for positive coverage of the Confucius Institute program, just for the page to have the ability for others, people with actual firsthand experience with our programs, to show a balanced perspective on this organization and at least accurately portray our programs and our students, especially if our critics are also going to be provided ample space to tear us apart. We welcome criticism, but allowing a page like this to be so divorced from the reality of our programs or our organization hurts the integrity of your website and calls into question the reliability of other pages.

Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from someone soon. CIUSCenter (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your URL isn't blacklisted. Your account has been blocked because we don't permit usernames which purport to be organizations. The message on your User Talk page explains how to request a name change. Concerns about the content of an article should be discussed on that article's talk page Versageek 17:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblocking SocialNews.XYZ

socialnews.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

My Name is Gopi Adusumilli the editor and owner of SocialNews.XYZ. I see that our news website is added to the blacklist and was marked a spamming blog. Please let us know what we should do to get off the blacklist.

We are a genuine Indo-American news website. We cover most of the Indian and American news from reputed sources likes AP/PTI/IANS. We are also an approved news source for google news.

As part of our coverage, we post first look posters of Indian(from Producers) and Hollywood movies(sourced from EPK.TV). Movie fans tend to use those images and add them to Wikipedia since we are usually seen on top of google searches.

Please help us get off the blacklist and we are ready to make any changes you propose.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agk4444 (talk • contribs)

no Declined We generally don't remove links from the blacklist at the request of the site owner, especially given that you've engaged in WP:COI editing by inserting links to your own site in the past. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concern. It happens on my site all the time with freelance writers who tries to link other sites.

How about starting clean? I will remove all the links posted by me on the site and promise to not post any link from my site and you can put the block back if I break any rules. I know I am reaching here but I am desperate since I am working hard on this site for the past 5 years and do not want to be blacklisted by Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agk4444 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. While your offer to remove the links you added is generous, I've already taken the liberty of clearing them all from article space. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking website historypak.com

Dear Sir/Madam, Today I was trying to contribute to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razia_Sultana about sharing some extra information with the users of wikipedia than I was surprised to see that this website is blocked. I would kindly ask you to remove this website from the blacklist, as they work on the creation of unique and useful content which may also be a good contribution to Wikipedia sources. I always try to share the maximum knowledge among the people so they get the maximum points for clearing their confusion and increase their knowledge. In regard of historical information historypak provide the best content which may further contribute to wikipedia sources. Thanks The website was started sharing the information from 2013 and still providing the best content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.106.222 (talk • contribs)

 Not done Site does not appear to be a reliable source and therefore has no legitimate use here. Furthermore, we generally don't remove sites from the blacklist at the request of users who are affiliated with the site in question. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

historypak.com

Dear Sir/Madam, Today I was trying to contribute to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razia_Sultana about sharing some extra information with the users of wikipedia than I was surprised to see that this website is blocked. I would kindly ask you to remove this website from the blacklist, as they work on the creation of unique and useful content which may also be a good contribution to Wikipedia sources. I always try to share the maximum knowledge among the people so they get the maximum points for clearing their confusion and increase their knowledge. In regard of historical information historypak provide the best content which may further contribute to wikipedia sources. Thanks The website was started sharing the information from 2013 and still providing the best content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Waseemkhan0011 (talk • contribs)

 Not done Site does not appear to be a reliable source and therefore has no legitimate use here. Furthermore, we generally don't remove sites from the blacklist at the request of users who are affiliated with the site in question, even when multiple such users make the same request. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.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]

@JzG: Globally I have an abusefilter that inhibits of blocks many of these dodgy TLD additions for new users. Is that a better means to handle? see m:Special:AbuseFilter/175 and m:Special:AbuseFilter/162 — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Billinghurst, be interested in seeing what that looks like (I can't see the meta filters). Guy (help!) 10:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to have jealousmarkup.xyz removed from the blacklist because I think it is a reliable source. -- PK2 (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PK2, please request whitelisting,  Defer to Whitelist. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I didn't know that. -- PK2 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

youtu.be videos in talk pages (as opposed to youtube.com

Hello, currently one is unable to add links to youtube videos in talk pages in the short form youtu.be/videoid . However one can link to youtube videos in the form youtube.com/watch?v=videoid. Youtu.be is a youtube owned domain. Could we remove youtu.be from the blacklist? Thank you --TZubiri (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See this recent discussion, along with many previous discussions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TZubiri, moreover, this was massively spammed using spambots (which, for some reason, did not bother to try it with the expanded links). youtube links are already heavily discouraged (read the various parts of WP:EL), for the genuine links the extra hurdle is just a reminder that we do discourage these. (note: this is blacklisted globally). Dirk Beetstra T C 17:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses, WP:EL and the discussions from 2006 do not appear to be relevant to links in talk pages as they discuss links in the context of being used as sources. Is there any infrastructure in place to relax requirements in contexts where the link is not being used as a source? I realize that maintaining two blacklists would be untenable, but perhaps categorizing blacklisted websites according to their reason going forward should help here and in other endeavors, like providing concise appropriate error messages. --TZubiri (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some blacklisted websites are already categorized in the form of comments, for example

\bcams\.com/go\b # afiliate\b . Dirk, where these messages posted in article bodies or in talk pages? If you remember an article and date, please share them and I'd like to look them up.--TZubiri (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TZubiri, that does not matter, the spam-blacklist does not distinguish between content pages and talkpages (a known shortcoming of the spam blacklist). Secondly, it does not matter, there is the full link that can be and should be used (there are several cases where youtube.com videos do get blacklisted, and administration becomes too tiresome if we have then to take care of all redirects as well). And yes, in this case, e.g. Special:Log/spamblacklist/122.57.244.74, the spambots were also attacking talkpages, so we would not want it there anyway.
There simply is no reason to use redirect sites, use the full link, everywhere. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mises Brasil

mises.org.br: 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 is fake news about taxation in the East Timor. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:199D:BE00:6E42:A58D (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And instrumentalized by neonazi alt-right 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:D56E:FA60:F275:FB91 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
please block in the meta too.2804:14C:5BB3:A319:31BE:A7D8:AD72:3519 (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined. The Mises Institute is a think tank, it is a very dubious source, but you provide no evidence of it being spammed. --Guy (help!) 16:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorist group anti-State. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:CC63:BEBE:F355:326C (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum for political discussions. Please provide verifiable evidence of spamming, otherwise your request will remain declined. If you'd like to discuss the site's suitability as source, please use WP:RSN or WT:RSP as venues. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for removing futufan.com from blacklist

futufan.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

Hello,

I am working for the requested website and included the site name in one of the external links and as a result (obviously) blacklisted. This was a major wrongdoing on my part and suffering the consequences as of now. I wish it to be removed from the blacklist as no such thing will happen ever again. Aligraying (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Aligraying[reply]

@Aligraying: no Declined. It was not ‘one’, it was a whole campaign. And we generally do not remove domains on request of site owners, we may remove if established high-volume editors can convince us that a site is of general use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


yourstory.com

As the site is blocked and certainly because of the abuse of TOU, but Currently the website is one of the most reliable and accurate one across India, and just because of its authenticity I guess one of the Biggest Investor and Industrialist from India Ratan Tata has Invested in the company Read This and This, apart from tata big firms like University of California, Berkeley, Kalaari Capital, Qualcomm Ventures and many others have also invested in Yourstory Read This, so I feel like the website is not anymore the subject to be in blacklist, it should be whitelisted, Thanks --Dtt1Talk 10:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtt1: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. The site is a PR platform, where most of the content serves to promote the covered topics and is not suitable as reliable source for Wikipedia (and the site has been systematically misused by editors with a conflict of interest). Rare cases of worthwhile content could be handled via whitelisting. --GermanJoe (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

walmart.com.co

Fake website spammed by IPs. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mcafeee.ml

Multiple users have been inserting this link to McAfee over the past few months, and the watchers are missing it. [3][4][5] This link stayed there masked as the Official Website for a few months now. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Þjarkur: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud domains

All of these have been added by members of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajumitwa878 sock drawer. These domains are fraudulent domains which look intentionally similar to real ones (e.g. creditkarma.com, equifax.com). I'm not clicking those links but given how pushy they are about sneaking them in as the "official website" I'm pretty sure we don't want people clicking them. Yes, a couple of these have only been added by one person, but this is a persistent spam farm and I'm not taking chances. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability, can you please cross-check with:
Those I blacklisted before for similar behaviour. And equifax is also not a stranger to me I think. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

regexes

Bigger hammer. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, I'll do the cross-check later today or tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure this is all the same people. blacklisting creditskarma is fine, but I think equifax.com is the legit domain so the second one will hit the real deal as well. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be weird to blacklist equifax in general and whitelist the official link (equifax.com)? Kuru (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kuru, no, that would be the idea. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, sorry about the delay on this. I suggest regex-blocking all of these (creditskarma, equifax, transunion, whitepages, fico) and whitelisting the good domains. I'd rather you (or someone else who isn't me) act on this, I haven't used the whitelist or a broad regex blacklisting like this before. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting the whole set of broad line names, linking to those where the official domains are going to be. Whitelist request is underway here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bestref.net

Massive sockfarm spamming (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emel Ulusoy). Guy (help! - typo?) 09:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Beetstra, this may be x-wiki? See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Refspam across many articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/mdpi.com. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: there is a second (older) url on mdpi as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG and Beetstra: just added another site they've spammed e.g. [6] SmartSE (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse, added tot he global blacklist request Guy (help! - typo?) 10:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

I was posting on a *talk page* and my edit was blocked (the offending url was scycrapers.com. I get that that's not a source for an article, but I mean can I not even talk about it? Stuff on that website is data. It's no good for ref'ing, but it is good for having a conversation. (In this particular case, I was pointing to a forum thread. I mean am I not allowed to say "Hey look at all these people on this forum thread saying such-and-such, is this not something worth looking into providing good refs can be found" or something.) Surely the url-blocking code can be modified to not apply itself to talk pages. Or would there be a downside to that? Herostratus (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, unfortunately not. The spam-blacklist is black-and-white, links are blocked or not. It is a recognized flaw in the system that has unfortunately still not been resolved. Note that there are things that should nowhere be linked, not even on talkpages. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah all right, thanks. Not a programmer anymore, but I would think it would be easy enough for the code to test itself to see if it was dealing with an article page or other page... I would guess that the code is internal to the English Wikipedia (as is our template code for instance) and not controlled by the WMF. However, its a fair point that there are some urls that are spammed everywhere I suppose or otherwise not welcome even on talk pages, so maybe this wouldn't work without a lot of extra effort... Herostratus (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is controlled by the WMF, and I don't think updates are a very high priority. - MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie, I am afraid that that is an understatement .. :-D. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stromlap.in

Recurring blog spam, apparently with some block evasion thrown in for good measure (dynamic IPs). GermanJoe (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

medisupps.com

Link
Spammers

Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manual talkpage cleanup

As the archive bot seemed to have some problems with the current talkpage content, I have manually archived a whole bunch of old threads - basically everything that was either stale, older than 15 July or an invalid request. Please see the archive for August 2020, if you need or want to check any of the archived content. GermanJoe (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

newschant.com

(copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocked_external_links/Current_requests/Removals&diff=971640857&oldid=971640778)

Please unblock newschant.com site from Wikipedia. Why this website publishes the India's and world's trending news and articles. This news portal is 'Google News' approved portal. If you want, You can also search in the news section of Google.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.246.163.219 (talk • contribs)

 Not done It's blacklisted because your IP range spammed the heck out of it. Its "Google news" status is immaterial here. Trusted users still have the option of requesting a whitelisting if necessary, but I doubt that will be necessary given that there are plenty of other news sites in India that are not the subject spam campaigns. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

allcloud spam farm

links
users

Needs blacklisting, but I need reports on the IPs to see if there is more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help! - typo?) 14:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TLVIV

links
users
Fairly persistent blogspam using numerous IPs. Ongoing since December 2019 at least, see IP range contributions above. The site is some guy's fringe theory blog/storefront and not usable as a source under any circumstances. Spicy (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicy: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

medicinesonline.org.uk

Link
Spammers

If Medicinesonlineuk is blocked like Medicinesonline already has been, I have little doubt they will be back with another name spamming the same link. FDW777 (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenicia.org

links
Some guy's fringe/Pseudohistorical/racialist theories condensed in a 1999 website. The website is unusable per wikipedia's guidelines and policies (WP:RS, WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, etc). It was probably used more in wikipedia in the 2000s (per this fringe theories report and the discussions in [7]). Some ips are still introducing it from time to time. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I last looked it had illegal copies of articles still in copyright. It's rubbish. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheseusHeLl and Doug Weller: DW's comment does it. I was hesitant because I saw a lot of apparent GF use (many additions by users who are 'whitelisted' on the bot). plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tumtumcab.com

Link

TumTumCabb and TumTum Cab have both been creating userspace articles with that website. They were blocked at least once, they will probably be back spamming the same link. VVikingTalkEdits 16:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also see User talk:Cab TumTum--VVikingTalkEdits 16:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TumTum Cabb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onlykollywood.com

Flare-up appears to have started circa June 2020 and carried onward. Earlier today there were over 400 links to to this site at the English Wikipedia, most of them added by IPs in the 122.174.* range, like 122.174.60.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As you can see, those big dumps in their edit history are laden with links to onlykollywood.com. Here they add a whopping 66 links. I reverted them, and of course they made a sneaky no-ping revert here and elsewhere. So it seems pretty clear that this is an organised campaign to flood Wikipedia with these links. And for context, this is a faceless Indian entertainment blog/portal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two spammed domains

See COIBot report, spammed by both a (now-blocked) registered user and IPs. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism spam source

While looking for sources I found two extremely similar, extremely strange articles:

  • upnewsinfo.com/2020/06/21/plandemic-video-is-thriving-across-non-english-internet/
  • queenscitizen.ca/2020/06/19/plandemic-movie-is-thriving-throughout-non-english-internet/

These are the same basic article but different outlets and different named authors. Looking closer, these were both plagiarized from the same Buzzfeed News article.

It looks like they were machine-translated and then translated back. For example, "...a video-sharing platform that has long sought to support right-wing content creators" becomes "...a video-sharing platform that has long sought to assistance ideal-wing material creators". Every source I have looked at from both outlets is plagiarized, but most don't even bother with the machine translation.

Unfortunately, for several articles, the original is on aceshowbiz.com which is currently blacklisted. This means that the sources are plagiarism which cannot even be replaced with the original. UpNewsInfo will only cause future headaches. I assume Queenscitizen.ca is the same model, and of course there are probably countless more like it. Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rocketreach.co

This is being used in various drafts, mainspace articles, particularly BLPs. It's a data aggregate site and a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation. There is absolutely no reason this should ever be used on Wikipedia (rocketreach isn't notable, so not even valid use in an article.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Escort sites

Yuck. Still working through these COIBot reports, probably more to find, I'll BL once I'm finished adding them. I know that some have only been added by one user, but overall it looks like there's multiple accounts in this spam farm, so going to knock them all out.

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate spam

These links have been added by various IPs to real estate articles. The websites promote the services of real estate sales agents, and far as I can tell, they don't contain any resources trustworthy enough to be cited on Wikipedia. They do offer a few "guides" for homeowners, but registration is required to view the guides. See COIBot report for virtualcashhomebuyers.com and cashhomebuyersdallas.com. Also recent additions of cashhomebuyersdallas.com from this June to the present, [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. No COIBot report for sellmyhousefastdallas.org, but it seems related, was added here. Altamel (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

beautypageants.indiatimes.com

This is native advertising as it describes itself (ETimes is an Entertainment, TV & Lifestyle industry's promotional website and carries advertorials and native advertising.) and as I reported to RSN. It has no place being used as references or anything else here. beautypageants.in redirects to beautypageants.indiatimes.com. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Pleas975155311e undo this. This is the beauty pageants section of the India Times, one of the largest and most respected newspapers in India, and one of the best sources I've found on beauty pageants in Asia - and beauty pageants in Asia are a big deal, much more so than in the west. Bri's report to RSN was answered by only one person, and even they thought it should still be usable for basic facts. The fact that it says it carries native advertising is not the same thing as it is native advertising, and unfortunately, using native advertising is a more and more common fact of the newspaper business,, such as Fast Company, BuzzFeed, Forbes, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, Gawker, and The New York Times.[15] It's also a sponsor of Femina Miss India, the largest Indian beauty pageant itself, and blacklisting it removes the best possible source for who won that. Please, please undo this. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban and Bri:, I have undone it by commenting them out. I do see concerns here that were addressed in the RSN discussion - basically SPS and that this part is not really maintained by indiatimes, it uses their servers and systems. Please address that further. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! We will certainly discuss it further, but I'm pretty sure you're not correct that it is not really part of the India Times, I think it is. For example, go to the official site for The Times of India from our article, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/, and click on Entertainment in the top bar, you get to https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes which is the same logo, ETimes, Entertainment Times, and has different subheadings, Movies, TV, Music, and Pageants, this one last going to https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/. As I wrote, in many countries in Asia, beauty pageants are important forms of entertainment, just like all those others. India is not unique in this, in Indonesia and The Philippines they are at least as important if not more. Most of us editors are from North America and Europe, so we are used to not questioning that people in Europe go nuts over Soccer, or in the US over Football and Baseball, yet for some reason walking on a stage in an evening gown is somehow more silly than running on a field with a ball? Note also that the entire India Times entertainment section (yet another link to it: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment) carries the same "carries advertorials and native advertising" notice. I think this is just a misunderstanding of what that notice means, it does not mean either that every single article is an ad, or that there is no difference between articles and ads, it just means that some ads do their best to look like articles, and we get that in major news sources in the West as well. --GRuban (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, Here is a list of everything related to beauty pageants that Wikipedia should include:
There are no omissions in this list.
Everything you need to know about pageants can be summed up in one sentence: Donald Trump bought one and used his position as owner to ogle and, according to the women, sexually assault, contestants. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Gawd. We can't get away! Aren't you British? Isn't the Atlantic Ocean wide enough to shield you from the national obsession? You know what my favorite Bridge bid is? Four No Trump. You know why I can't wait for the apocalypse? It'll be the sound of the Last Trump... --GRuban (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fake official links

This link has been repeatedly inserted to Fiverr (see history) by IPs and a few new accounts. Each time disguising it as the official link. The WHOIS result shows that it is not official, so likely another case of replacing the official link with a referral link that has been popular lately. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 20:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One IP, 2600:100D:B069:3C4E:9D7D:DD2B:F727:5379, who added the link to Fiverr, went on to try to add the same type of fake link at LiveJasmin as well as SeekingArrangement. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 22:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apparition11:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem, and this really needs to be solved at the global level, as, as can be expected, WD is already affected. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

alus.lnk.to

  • alus.lnk.to: 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
  • alus.lnk.to is a music website of my favorite music artist. But Wikipedia is not allowing me to make a hyperlink for her albums because a part of it "lnk.to" shows as blocked. I checked your spam-blacklist page however, I can't seem to find it on the list to know the reason and the date of when it was blocked. The link alus.lnk.to needs to be unblocked for us to have her albums hyperlinked in her Wikipedia page. She is a legit rising artist and a lot of us is supporting her success. Please help me make this hyperlink possible. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Em134679 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Em134679: no Declined, lnk.to is globally blacklisted because of its content/use (link shortening service). Your specific link, alus.lnk.to/monstertruck is merely an aggregate of the music hosting services for Alus. Those links are inappropriate in Wikipedia articles. Only the official link, alusofficial.com (which is not blacklisted), is more than enough. See WP:ELOFFICIAL for more info. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update of blacklisting "g.co"

Currently, "g.co" (URL shortener) is blacklisted by the regular expression "\bg\.co\b", but it can easily prohibit unrelated websites. So I propose replacing this blacklist entry with "/g\.co/". (Perhaps "/g\.co\b" may be more appropriate.)

A specific example prohibited by the blacklist entry is "www. arcs-g. co. jp", a supermarket company in Japan. (In ".jp" domain, ".co.jp" is used for companies.) --Sinryow (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinryow, this is something that needs to be discussed on meta:  Defer to Global blacklist, though we generally do this through local whitelisting (it is a problem of the crudeness of the extension, the non-existence of a global whitelist and the persistence of abusers). Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra Thanks, I just cannot find such a page. Let me consider proposing there. --Sinryow (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sinryow, which page you can't find? Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sinryow, I have adapted the rule a bit, https://www.arc-g.co.jp should now work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra Thanks. What I couldn't find was the page  Defer to Global blacklist. And I found that I can include the link to "arcs-g.co.jp". --Sinryow (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sinryow, the 'Global blacklist' after 'Defer to' is a wikilink that you can click and which brings you to the right place. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cuetracker.net

@The Vintage Feminist: this was blacklisted after Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive967#Persistent_use_of_fansites_at_snooker_player_articles in 2017 (but spam problems have been known for much longer: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Sep_1#cuetracker.net). It was deemed a fansite, which was persistently misused (and earlier: abused). I don't think delisting without a counter discussion (e.g. at WP:RSN) is proper. no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

soccer.ru

These links have been added today to various articles mostly related to F. C. Barcelona by a newly-registered user (Legend_6_katalonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) ), who doesn't have any contributions beyond linkposting. This website is in fact a soccer fan forum severely biased, with articles tended to insult/abuse players and teams, and with very few amount of trustworthy content as compared to other Russian-language sports websites (I have been a user of soccer.ru since 2012). The links posted in early 2010s aren't working now since all the data posted before 2015 has been removed.--Joél be back (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Not[reply]

diccionariobiograficoecuador.com

This is hitting on something for "fico" -- I assume it is unintentional collateral damage, but I don't know exactly what "fico" intended to keep out, so I don't know how to revise the blocked URL appropriately. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

related to:
@Calliopejen1: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist. Fico is there for some pretty annoying spam where I am not comfortable yet to narrow that one down. (I'll cross-post on the whitelist and execute in a moment). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

resumego.net

Persistent spammer. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

112 domains removal

Also, it is definitely not a source of spam; in fact is carries almost no adverts (see a sample: [112.international/ukraine-top-news/fight-over-saint-george-ribbon-took-place-in-armed-forces-house-today-14927.html])
It was blocked based on an arbitrary complaint Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Other_Russian_fake_news_/_disinformation_sites, without any discussion or arguments, not to say it is not a Russian site (the latter fact demonstrates the lack of due diligence). Therefore I see wholesale the blacklisting of its outlets as part of political censoprhip, to prevent information critical of Ukrainian government to be entered into Wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. SignPost recently announced that Ukrainian government initiated a campaign of "presenting Ukrainian point of view in Wikipedia" (or something like that), a telling development to keep an eye on. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Staszek Lem, This is an alternate domain of 112.ru, a Russian disinformation site. There was nothing "arbitrary" about the complaint, and it was backed by independent sources identifying it as a fake news / disinformation source. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as 112.ru, but there is 112.ua, which is an alternate link for it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Staszek Lem, Correct, I misremembered.
The original with the source is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#news-front.info.
The fact of Ukraine making statements about wanting a pro-Ukraine POV does not in any way invalidate dealing with the much larger problem of Russian disinformation, which has destabilised the entire Western world over the last decade, to the point that one party in America now seriously seems to buy into the idea that Russia's invasions of Crimea and Ukraine were perfectly fine. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree, I myself wrote the article Putinversteher. But what does it have to do with the Ukrainian channels? Do you know that Ukrainian govt already withdrew a license of one opposition channel? Therefore I can assure you, if there were any shred of "Russian fake news" on the channel, it would be flying out of the door in seconds, due to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide links to independent sources, so that we can discuss the evidence. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Staszek Lem and JzG: seen how these sources are used and abused, I think Wikipedia would benefit from control on how these sources are used: enforce a talkpage discussion on how the source is going to be used in that article and what information it is going to support, and when there is consensus for that specific material, ask for whitelisting linking to the discussion. Hence,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: "Seen" is not an argument now. Sorry, Jzg also "seen" that it is 112.ru. Please provide your evidence of persistent abuse (any media can mistake now and then) , just as it was with this infamous British tabloid. 112.ua is no way a tabloid, it is an opposition channel. There was no evidence presented in the previous discussion. You have ignored my serious argument of the otherwise. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Staszek Lem, do I have to send you to the pages that JzG already mentioned in the linked RSN discussion. 112.ua is also in these lists: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/jews-were-attacked-with-knives-and-sticks-in-a-ukrainian-city-uman/
I stand with my suggestion, get some proper usages whitelisted and see how common proper use of these sites are. I can agree that there is, maybe quite a lot, of proper use of these sites, but with a persistent group of people insisting to push disinformation, wrong information, anything that can be used there will be abused. Thát is why I argue for control instead of opening floodgates. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed:
(but I don't see much of obvious continuation of this). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: do I have to send you to the pages that JzG already mentioned in the linked RSN discussion you do not have to, because there are none. If you mean the search links, like 112.international HTTPS links HTTP links - it lists refs used in wikipedia. Since they still sit here, I assume there is no abuse in them. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
euvsdisinfo.eu report: many uk: news copied this report with reference to YeshivaNews , including the non-pro-Russian ones, such as uk:Апостроф (інтернет-видання). Are you saying that this report was cited in Wikipedia? If yes, then it is sloppiness of a wikipedian, who did not trace the report to its origin, prominently cited in all reposts. This is a widely discussed disease of all modern news agencies, including venerable ones, to hunt for "hot news" without bothering to double-check them. Once again, you have to prove systematic abuse before blacklisting. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:112.international : this username was rightfully blocked per our user name rules: "promotional username". This user made not a single edit. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
112 Ukraine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to it being bought out in December 2018 by Ukrainian parliament member Taras Kozak, who represents the Opposition Bloc political party. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Staszek Lem, wrong, 3 promotional edits. Spammers generally hardly ever stop when blocked, but I did here not see it. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3 promotional edits - probably to its own user page. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Staszek Lem, it is the intent. They were here to promote. But my second part is more important. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
control instead of opening floodgates - if without proof of significant abuse, it is called censorship in the civilized world. Wikipedia is not a tabloid to rush and cite primary sources (news reports are mostly primary sources, right?) which cite unnamed "witnesses" for their facts. This mist be a "red flag" for any reasonable wikipedian. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lol, it's a deprecated source because it's literally a fake news outlet, of deceptive intent, that was being pushed on Wikipedia with deceptive intent. It is not a usable source if you're here to write an encyclopedia. There is no good reason I can think of to remove it from the list. If you think there are good, practical reasons to remove it from the list, please provide some example good uses that should be whitelisted - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, Ah, I see now that 112 Ukraine (of which 112.ua is the server where they host their homepage) is listed in WP:RSP. We should really cross-link our blacklist and RS records. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yeah. Deprecation and spam-listing are separate questions, but in some cases, like this one, they coincide. So admins following one should probably follow the other - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, yes - deprecated sources are rarely blacklisted, but fake news sites arte much more likely to be. This is a fake news site. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
112 Ukraine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to it being bought out in December 2018 by Ukrainian parliament member Taras Kozak, who represents the Opposition Bloc political party. -- Where is the link to "the 2019 RFC" so that I can take a look at the overwhelming consensus? And exactly what I said: its guilt is belonging to the opposition. According to recent polls, the Opposition Platform is the second-position party in Ukraine, and Wikipedia is blocking its outlets. Good job, Wikipedia, supporting state censorship. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a fake news outlet, of deceptive intent -- proof, please. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already told you earlier, quoting WP:RSP right above, that there was no evidence presented. Please do not close without addressing the issues raised, the main one being that there is no track of the serious discussion of massive abuse. You do not block a major news outlet on a whim of 2-3 admins. And insulting a fellow wikipedian, who requests answers, in closing statement is disrespect. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem seems to be correct. The 2019 RfC supposedly behind the WP:RSP entry does not mention the site. The blacklisting is based on another December 2019 RS/N thread which was not a RfC. I opened all the links in that discussion and 112 Ukraine wasn't mentioned in any. It seems out of process to lump the site together with others like this. --Pudeo (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The excessive reliance on journalist sources indicates a problem in the underlying article. Those articles are written for the need of the day and usually have little lasting value, while an encyclopedia should provide more solid and lasting information. (In commercial encyclopedias, news articles are rarely cited.) In most cases, better sources can be obtained, but they are not as easily accessible (or linkable) due to the copyright-paywall tyranny. Also, most journalist articles suffer from logorrhea, and could be condensed to salient tweets. This indicates that people are being paid or valued for the sheer amount of text they produce, rather than for its quality. Sputnik news covers everything relevant and is pro-Russian enough. What is needed is not more links to news sites, but better selection of information and a better style of presentation. --83.137.6.226 (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right. However the recent developments (by "recent" I mean up to 5 years old) are seldom summarized in scholarly form. I also agree that modern journalist behave like pundits rather than reporters. Therefore from the media we better not cite opinions, but facts, and the reliability of facts must be cross checked with Wikipedians' due diligence: multiple sources, reliability of individual journalists, etc. Often it is hard to find the best source fight away, therefore we have the template {{better source needed}}, the initial reference merely being an indication at a fact, to be further researched. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(My case: the Ribbon of Saint George is banned in Ukraine as a symbol of aggressor, and people get fined for this. But every year the WWII veterans celebrate the Soviet-style May 9 Victory day, and every year nationalists beat these old farts up, ie., vigilantism rather tlan law and order. You will not find this in mainstream Ukrainian media overrun by state and state affiliates.) I wanted to add this fact, but run in the problem discussed here. I will probably will not edit this article, not in my area of interest, but here I am raising the issue as a matter of principle. In modern Ukraine all criticism of the government quickly gets the sticker "hand of Putin", "pro-Russian propaganda" or "bullhorn of Kremlin". And it is sad to see that Wikipedia blindly picks this up.) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pudeo, the RSN debates mention 112.ua. The twoi are one. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, you are not listening. The key word is "mention". My point is there is no proof of abuse. A major Ukrainian opposition party media is lumped together with Russian fake news sites. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Staszek Lem, proof of abuse is not required when a site is a fake news / propaganda source. But in fact it was abused by being grossly over-used to support pro-Russia talking points in articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are turning a deaf ear and using circular logic. Since you are repeating yourself, let me repeat myself: It is the media of the second-popular party in the Ukraine. You cannot claim it is a fake news site without serious proof. My second point: because of the war with Russia, Russian propaganda is quickly and strongly suppressed in the Ukraine in registered media. Therefore your opinion is without merit. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a waste of all our time - David Gerard (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't hear what? I don't see any proofs beyond links to some pages where this site is merely listed as "bad", without any arguments. Your continued refusal to address my arguments is appalling. It seems that I have to resort to WP:RFC. Have a nice day. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply examples of links to the 112 sites that would be beneficial as Wikipedia reference links - I asked you this before, and you haven't provided any. Do you have any? - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I will freaking not. See you at RFC. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently you didn't bother looking at WP:RFC/A - the RFC is already in progress. I must note that free speech arguments won't work for your case - per WP:NOTFREESPEECH - and directly refusing to supply links to the 112 sites that would be beneficial as Wikipedia reference links is simply a refusal to make your case - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cangaroo court. Nobody notified me. Whatever. I am not interested in ukrainian topics, so I dont care wasting my time anymore. I am not tqalking about free speech, I am talking about censorship. I am not talking about forum, I am talking about blocking major media outlet. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said you wanted an RFC, now that it's actually happening you don't? OK - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating: I was not notified and learned about it by a sheer accident. I see this as grossly disingenuous. Anyway, I made my statement there and DGAF anymore. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Staszek Lem, sorry you feel that way, I raised an RfC at RSN because I thought you made a decent point about process (this one was added more or less on the coat tails of a number of less ambiguous cases). You should watch WP:RSN and the RfC lists, I think. Russia-related sources often come up. It never occurred to me that you would not be watching, to be honest. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG Accepted. JzG My largely offtopic rants removed. You may still see them in history Staszek Lem (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at RSN has concluded, and I think that it might be worth revisiting this topic now. I believe that argument was given for 1) how there exist productive uses for this source, and 2) why the initial blacklisting didn't make sense based upon sources described. If it would be useful, I can summarize that discussion again here. I will note that, though the earlier responders did not change their statements after these arguments were presented, those who commented afterwards were more likely to oppose the blacklisting/deprecation. Jlevi (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox.com

This site has been on the blacklist for a few years, yet there were numerous additions today (see here and here). I'm not familiar enough with regex to understand why these weren't caught. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mystery to me as well. I'm wondering if a whitelisting here or on meta is interfering with it? OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
testing: [roblox.com/users/730205687/profile]. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
test2: [roblox.com/users/730205687/profile]. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jauerback and Ohnoitsjamie: as Jamie said, a broken regex on the whitelist. '\broblox\.com\/#WhatsRobloxContainer\b' was whitelisted, but since # gets parsed as a start of a comment, the regex that is ready by the system is actually \broblox\.com\/, or basically negating the whole blacklist. My fault ... I guess we need to find something else for the official website that can be linked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just missing an escape char, i.e. \broblox\.com\/\#WhatsRobloxContainer\b? OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie, no, per the header on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist: # * Everything from a "#" character to the end of the line is a comment . \broblox\.com\/#WhatsRobloxContainer\b for the spam blacklist extension is just \broblox\.com\/. I've had another case where this was a proiblem. It is uncommon, but some 'about pages' are on the root page. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that link is used anymore as far as I can tell; perhaps just remove it from the whitelist? OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie, that’s what I did. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, we could probably use corp.roblox.com as the About link - that's where "About Us" currently goes. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, it is a nice full link: roblox.com/info/about-us?locale=en_us. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, sure, but corp.roblox.com is the company so OK for "aboutself". Meh. I care not. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonyprize.com

sonyprize.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 spam link has been added several times by various editors and IPs in Kaun Banega Crorepati posing as a official website. It may be defrauding people as a official game show / lottery website. It itself says that other KBC websites are fake which is unusual.-Nizil (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackpearl55: added it last time. -Nizil (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nizil Shah:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yos100.com

yos100.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

5.112.197.228 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
5.78.159.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
5.78.71.9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
5.114.19.164 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
5.114.21.77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
5.114.104.21 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

(and others) Spam resumes every time Yös exam is unprotected; better to address the issue at the root. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August_2020"