MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2017

trendinghour.com


Non WP:RS website that is being actively spammed by IPs and throw-away accounts (as external links with no, or at most very little, relevance for the articles they are being added to) on multiple articles, at a slow rate for at least six months now but at an increasing pace over the past few days, with at least two IPs adding links to the site yesterday and another two so far today. All of the thirty-some links I found doing an external links search today (most links that have been added seem to have been removed at sight by any editor who noticed it, but there are always some that slip through) have been removed by me, but they keep on coming... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet another IP showed up today, adding an inappropriate external link to the site. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And they keep coming, a new IP added links on four pages today. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Kinkstudio.info


Redirect to blacklisted kink.com. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

kaitlyn.co.in
A link to an escort service. Keeps getting added in various places. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

csgopedia.com



 * Addition of spam references by multiple single-purpose accounts and IPs, , , Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

lyricsbright.com

 * being added by link spammer. Hosts unlicensed lyrics and citing it violates WP:ELNEVER. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)



I've blocked the editor as a spam-only account. If this returns, then this can go swiftly on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that the editor was also active on de.wiki, refspamming. I think I will pull the trigger on meta if they insist.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist propaganda
Hi could you blacklist ISIL terrorist propaganda websites from Wikipedia :
 * by.
 * by.
 * by.
 * by.
 * by.
 * by.

Also, could you remove the diff from the history ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, that is possible, can you please list the websites here (inside a LinkSummary template). I notice that many of these edits seem to set the 'official website' of the subjects of the page - we generally do list them, and while we do not agree with the content necessarily, we do not censor them.  I could however agree that this is better done with a more neutral landing page on the sites (generally an about page), which should then be whitelisted after these all have been blacklisted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The links brought by these opportunistic ip addresses are often dead after a few days, which shows that these websites are clandestine. Furthermore, many countries of the European Union prohibit their nationals from consulting these sites. I do not know what it is in the USA. But contributors and readers can not be endangered by prosecution. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * if they are dead after a couple of days, then blacklisting them is an advanced form of whack-a-mole .. in a couple of days they have a new link (as witnessed with Al-Bayan (radio station).
 * Would you mind creating a list of the domains, I'd like to have a second look at them. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The national domain often changes but the addresses always start the same. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean, the TLD just changes but not the name. That is more convenient.  Can you make the list.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have an error message :"The following link has triggered a protection filter: bayanradio", "payanradio", etc. Now, could you delete the diff form the pages ? --Panam2014 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You tried to post the full links, just leave off the http://. Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

-- Panam2014 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Formatted for readability. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * These have been blacklisted already on meta, see diffs - for any future requests, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am copying the list to meta, linked to a log. It was blacklisted because of edit on fr.wikipedia.  Any future domains (all tld's on these '3' domains have been blocked now) should be reported to meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

khamagmongol.com


hi, unblock please khamagmongol.com i can not add link khamagmongol.com/tuuli/tales for kalmyk fairy tales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.177.254.202 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , this is blacklisted on meta, a set of these links including this one was spammed across mulitple wikis.  for specific links on this domain . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

themoviedb.org, tmdb.org
,

No explanation given for blacklisting in 2008. Site is functional and does not appear to contain any offenses. Please advise. Jason Olshefsky (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , it was back then spammed by someone who was involved with the site, who was just here a couple of months ago to create a userspace draft for an article on the subject (which, when moved into article space (with a history on its own) was deleted through AfD). On the forum of the site fans showed the incentive to add links to tmdb, and some of them tried (as witnessed from the blacklist).  The site does not give any information beyond what is already in articles (imdb is similarly superfluous on many articles where it is linked; that was particularly true for cases where the editors from the forum tried to add the links).  If there are cases where the link is particularly informative and needed, specific whitelisting can be considered.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

populartoday.us


spam, spam .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

relatedlists.com


Spammed at the moment is kenya.relatedlists.com, but I can't see much use of the parent either. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

mobigyaan.com
Dear Administrators, I cite mobigyaan.com along with other websites once in a while whenever I feel it's worth doing that. I have been their regular reader since last few years. Today when I tried to add the link I got a message that the domain has been blacklisted, I couldn't understand why it happened as this website is an authentic news source. Requesting you to look into this and remove it from the blacklist.

PS - Since, I haven't done this earlier I didn't know that mention of user name of necessary for the replies. I used to update without login.

Pixel love (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why am I not getting a reply? Pixel love (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It was blacklisted per WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/mobigyaan.com, the report shows an very unhealthy number of IPs who solely edit to add info referenced to this site (WP:REFSPAM). I am sure User:MER-C can tell more.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That, and when I added the domain to the blacklist hardly any of those additions had survived. I certainly don't remember removing any links, and my contribution history shows I didn't remove any when I blacklisted the link. MER-C 04:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't about all the IPs but I made a few additions without login as I find that easy. Also, I didn't add all the references on a single day, I cited them only when I found something made sense. So, what I am understanding is that somebody tried to add too many links from some IP and got this website banned, is that the case? Pixel love 09:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, please reply. Pixel love 03:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean that you made those additions using 40 different IPs out of at least 3 IP-ranges? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that there is some confusion here. I don't know remember how many additions I made, I mentioned that I made a few additions. I didn't make a user account as I felt that it was easier to do without it. This was the first part of my answer.

In the second questioned I asked, if posting from IP can result in ban, then isn't it easier for anybody to get any website banned.

Also, I am a little confused about the reason of the ban. This is solely for my knowledge about the Wikipedia usage. If posting to wikipedia without login resulted in ban for this website, then I have done this for other websites as well, will those sites be banned as well? Pixel love 14:44, 09 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but additions by 40 different IPs that all are practically reverted may be. I guess that you were one or two of the separate IPs.  For the rest, see Joe job, and in a way it is not really our concern, our concern is to stop the disruption.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C


 * So, this website should not be removed from the blacklist? --Pixel love 08:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please reply --Pixel love 07:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * there were additions by 40-ish IPs, and most of the additions were already reverted/removed .. that signifies that these additions were not wanted. We are not here to play whack-a-mole with more IPs and keep reverting such additions.  If you think that it is somewhere of use, please request whitelisting of specific links with specific use, but until significant use of this site is evident, indeed delisting is .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My point here is that may be somebody tried to play a mischief, I have been a loyal reader of them since last few years and they are one of the most authentic news source in India when it comes to technology news.I know I don't have any say here, but I just tried to put my point of view. Considering the quality of news they produce on daily basis, they shouldn't be banned. Those link which you think/know are spam should be removed for sure, but banning entire site because somebody else abused the system would be too harsh. I hope you will consider this. --Pixel love 08:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What happens off-site is not our problem, the purpose of the spam blacklist is to protect Wikipedia from people adding unwanted external links. In any case, the links did not seem very wanted, most of them were already removed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You are saying that links are removed, but I saw this link today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaomi#cite_ref-63, you can also check that there is no spam here and the link was properly added. --Pixel love 12:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right, all properly added by the spammers, I guess more cleanup is needed. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to be sarcastic? --Pixel love 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no sarcastic intent. Those links that are still there were missed in the original cleanp, as they were spammed as well.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

bathtrams.uk
Please can this site be de listed - its a legitimate non profit site promoting re tramming in Bath. I dont see how we can be spammers since we dont sent out any emails???

Thanks

Engineman (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * because there is nothing to do. bathtrams.uk does not appear on either the local English-Wikipedia blacklist or on the meta-blacklist. I can link to it just fine: http://bathtrams.uk
 * What are you seeing that suggests it is blacklisted? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The definition of spam is wider than just sending emails, it is also unsolicited pushing of information or webpages. WP:SPAM will tell you what Wikipedia defines as spam.
 * You've been repeatedly hitting the blacklist because you were copying the link from the google search result page. Those are Google tracking links sending you to the webpage, not the address of the actual webpage itself.  You have to follow the link from the Google result page, and copy the address from your browser's address bar.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will add, however, that you absolutely should never add a link to your own organization in a Wikipedia article. You have a WP:Conflict of interest (read it). It is best, if you want a link added, to propose the link on the talk page of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

OK thank for that. Understood.Engineman (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

visajourney.com
This was added pursuant to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2017. VisaJourney isn't a commercial site and I would like to see evidence showing it was refspammed before I believe it. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)





And yes, that is the same Vipul that is involved in the edits that resulted in the blacklisting of econlib.org. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * VisaJourney is not that big a deal since it's more the kind of site that one would use as an external link rather than a reference. But it does seem that someone like Vipul can poison the well pretty badly by paying people to add links and then telling the world, "These are all the users I paid to add links." From what I saw, no one had completely figured out his agenda, because in many cases, what he was doing didn't seem to have any logical purpose. Maybe he was paid by certain sites' enemies to help get those sites blacklisted, by spamming their links and then documenting the spamming publicly! It's as plausible a theory as any.


 * Is there any sunset on these blacklistings, or do they remain forever because of what Vipul was doing? In other words, how long before it's appropriate to come back and say, "Let's revisit this, now that some time has passed"? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * we generally only revisit when significant use is shown, That is, when we get overwhelmed by numerous granted whitelisting requests. If it is just useful for a couple of pages (and here I could currently only see use on one, the subject itself), whitelisting will suffice.
 * Note that who spammed it for which reason is of no interest to us - we blacklist to protect Wikipedia against spamming, not to punish the spammer. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking also along the lines of, "Once he and his crew are gone, if there are no other spammers, then maybe it's safe to remove those sites from the blacklist." VisaJourney's visa-specific timelines and flowcharts make it one of the more useful sites out there for navigating the U.S. visa process, so I could see some of VisaJourney's pages' being useful external links on wiki pages pertaining to those visas. I'm not sure how many people will go to the trouble of requesting whitelisting, though. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Once he and his crew are gone" ... spammers seldomly are gone. I've seen to many cases in the past, some of them are here for 10 years or longer and still active.  Point is, we hardly ever remove just because it is obsolete, we remove because it is needed (and the spamming stopped).  It may be useful for flowcharting etc., but that type of information is out of our scope (WP:NOTMANUAL).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

loadmate.in
6 IPs overall. One warned in 2015, one warned in 2016, one warned now. All additions removed. Enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

ebookbrowse.com
I have removed about 100 instances of this url. They all now go to a malicious site that try to infect your computer with a virus. Thinking we should add it to the blacklist to prevent further problems. Work still required in other languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I see you have done it :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

trackingmore.com

 * Spamming by multiple users, e.g.: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_Post&diff=772999375&oldid=772229987, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Track_and_trace&diff=prev&oldid=775351258, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Package_tracking&diff=prev&oldid=775347944, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poste_italiane&diff=prev&oldid=775347118, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Track_and_trace&diff=prev&oldid=772228511, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_Post&diff=768324276&oldid=762691218, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Package_delivery&diff=768959613&oldid=768324262. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

puddly-sites.000webhostapp.com

 * Spamming by multiple single-purpose accounts, e.g.:  . Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

000webhostapp.com

 * Poking one level higher .. see what else there is. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Poking one level higher .. see what else there is. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Neep to have a better look. Does NOT look good though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , some of the sites on this domain are used appropriately, some are spammy. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

winedecanter.store

 * Spamming by multiple single-purpose accounts, e.g.://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grosset_Wines&diff=775683100&oldid=667042758, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dornier_Wines&diff=775683492&oldid=641388579, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decanter&diff=775683686&oldid=773632195, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buenos_Aires_wines&diff=775681895&oldid=775681322, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gyropalette&diff=775682750&oldid=615442399. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Examiner.com

 * web.archive.org/web/20120707015449/http:// www.examiner.com/us-war-murdered-20-30-million-since-ww2-arrest-today-s-war-criminals US war-murdered
 * http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm
 * http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm

It is an important source that I intend to use in the article.187.104.44.105 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You've scrambled the urls so much that they become unreadable. In any case, examiner.com is not being removed, we can consider to whitelist specific links: .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Voobly.com

 * This was blocked for years at a time, but isn't blacklisted anymore. I just removed spam to it from an article that's had it removed from it many times over the years, it put there by an editor with only two other edits ever, both of them vandalism that got reverted.  No idea how many other times someone has seen it on that page or elsewhere and had to remove it.  A Voobly employee actually posted on a discussion about it, listing what pages they wanted it on, and these are the pages that have been spammed by them in the past, the link removed dozens of times over a long period of time.  To see a long list of some of these spams see  where it was added to the blacklist.  Anyway, it doesn't seem to be on there anymore.   D r e a m Focus  17:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The site is still showing in the blacklist (I just checked). Can you supply a link to where you removed it, so I can investigate further? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see it now. The mention isn't being added as an active URL, so the blacklist doesn't apply and won't impact the mentions. To prevent mentions that do not use an active URL, a request needs to be made to add the term to the edit filter (I see you've already created the request). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I wrote the address and hit preview and it didn't block it, so I thought it not on the blacklist anymore, so I posted here too.   D r e a m Focus  20:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

rapidweightloss.news


Spammed by two accounts, not encyclopedic material. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

springsteenlyrics.com


per WP:EL/N. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)(did not actually get added .. script botched?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC))


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)