MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2021

eprretailnews.com


Reported by SierraTangoCharlie1 at WP:AIV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

professionallawyer.me


Ping:,. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

tamilastronomy.in


Link has been added to single or multiple astronomy related articles by multiple users over a short period. All users are part of an ongoing SPI - Sockpuppet investigations/Audiototext1 - and spamming this link is the only contribution that they have made. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

zimyo.com
Continued to spam after final warning, at least three accounts. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

billlentis.com

 * See previous report from November 2019
 * See previous report from November 2019

SEO spam site, periodically spammed through citations for at least 3 years now. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 10:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Lenta.ru
I would like to propose to remove the website from the blacklist, because while it's important to prevent spam at all costs, I don't believe this website is to be be viewed as spam as a blacklist it was allowed in certain Wikipedias such as the Russian Wikipedia. As I've seen this decision by the English Wikipedia before, this should be useful for citations of websites as it sometimes shows news articles from that website. I still want it to be removed from the blacklist fully, but if the proposal is not accepted but is referred as a white list, I will support that decision. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this topic, please let me know here, or come find me in the talk page. Thank you. Ivan Milenin (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Per this report, removing from the blacklist does not seem like a good idea. Whitelisting could be considered on a case-by-case basis. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Pre-2014 articles can be whitelisted, but since then the site has been a disinformation site per more than one discussion.  This is not a spam issue. Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Britannica.com


I was rather stunned to get the blacklist filter on an Encyclopedia Britannica query; the message notice advised that britannica.com/search?query is on the blacklist, or the whole domain is. The specific link I was trying to add was [www.britannica.com/search?query=William+Gladstone EB]. Can we get this domain restored? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding the domain alone is not blacklisted, so must have something to do with the query string. Is there more than one list? I don't see the string  or   on the blacklist page. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found it at the global page MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist as, but I don't understand why it's there. Apparently added by  on 7 September 2018 per this discussion, which doesn't however enlighten why it was added. Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , the title of that section is a dead giveaway, spambots. Automated accounts that hammer wikipedia with link additions, and which were adding these.  You can use the link to wikisource as an alternative.  — Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your response. Wow, okay; I'm somewhat familiar with WikiSource (user, light editor) but I don't follow the part about linking to wikisource instead. WikiSource isn't a mirror of EB online, is it, unless I'm way behind on learning what WikiSource has published. If it is, then that serves my needs nicely. Can you further enlighten? Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * britannica is in the public domain, it is (or should be, I did not check) the same. I however think that you do not want to link to a search result (see WP:ELNO), but more likely to https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Ewart-Gladstone, which is not blocked either.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid only a search result will do. Gladstone was merely illustrative and I would have linked directly to that page had I had any interest in Gladstone. This is not for the external links section, but for a template designed to assist users in finding reliable sources to biographical articles, whose topic I cannot know in advance, but which would be supplied by the magic word . Hence, , not  . Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Secondly, isn't there some way to add a blacklisted url anyway, if one can prove that they're not a spambot? A user of many years in good standing should certainly pass that bar, right? Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you really want/need the search link (and not a direct link): for specific links on this domain.  Here delisting, it is globally blacklisted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Not sure I understand "delisting declined": I don't want to delist it, I want it kept blacklisted so spammers cannot continue to use it as they apparently do. But at the same time, I want to have one template page contain the link in one specific place, because I'm not a spammer. As soon as the link is there and saved, the page could be protected to template editors and admins only; this would prevent spammers (and even regular editors) from accessing that page. Would that work?
 * Also, what was that about WikiSource that you mentioned, I didn't get that at all. Is there a way to somehow use WikiSource to access EB content? Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I declined here because it is not blacklisted on en.wikipedia. If you want a (temporary) delist it has to go to meta, if you want (temporary) access on en.wikipedia only you should go to the whitelist .  But the situation is even more complicated, see below.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

dismantling threads. We start to confuse ourselves. This is more complicated, you really need the search link. We can whitelist the specific link, and then add it to a page (template). However, that allows it everywhere. We can temporarily delist on meta (or temporary whitelist here), add it to the template, and then remove the rule that allows it again, but then any transclusion of the template is going to result in the blacklist hit (as, through transclusion, you are then adding a blacklisted link to the page you transclude the template on). So that all is not going to work (it just renders the template useless, or we have to whitelist every specific search anyway).

One solution: use the search function of WikiSource (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/special:search to find only pages in the 1911 encyclopedia britannica tree; make it find https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Gladstone,_William_Ewart).

Second solution: use a google cse (custom search engine) to perform the britannica search, and get the cse whitelisted (google's search is also blacklisted obviously; we do liberally whitelist specific cse engines requested by regulars). For the template it does not make a difference, but the britannica search link is at least 'blocked' so the spambots can't add it (and the are unlikely to 'find' the cse, or would unlikely bother). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , thanks for all your responses and time, I really do appreciate it very much; I new to blacklisting (here), so didn't understand a lot of the basics. I'm familiar with gg cse, and that sounds like a great solution, hadn't thought of that. I'll be back after I've set it up, to request white-listing. Thanks for the tip! Mathglot (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please use Template:Search as it will get you around the issue. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Dig around in that template's module for a search URL that can be used in place of the one this opened with. Say n' more.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

bestchairsreviews.com


Hi, i just noticed that my website "bestchairsreviews.com" is blacklist on wikipedia. I am not sure who did that probably my competitors did this practice to hurt my website. Can you please review and whitelist my website on wikipedia? Anmol1222 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ I see that you just triggered the blacklist log by trying to add a link to Office chair. That, along with this report makes a strong case that it belongs on our blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes that was added by me and that source was legit and not spam as old entries, someone enters my website link on wrong articles. Anmol1222
 * , again. We do not consider requests from site owners. If a trusted, high-volume editor decides that your site needs to be used somewhere, we will consider a request. The fact that you just tried to link your own site yourself, in violation of Conflict of interest guidelines, plus the fact that it was heavily spammed by multiple users in the past, makes it abundantly clear that the site should remain in the blacklist for now. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Zimyo.com


When I added those links, I was not aware of how wikipedia works and since I saw a fellow promotional article on the same wikipedia page I was into the misconception that we can add useful information and citations that I have written myself. However, I did not intend to ruin the experience of the wikipedia users. Therefore I request you to kindly remove my link from spam. I would never insert a link again on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arg8130 (talk • contribs)
 * Allow me to retort. You acknowledged a warning here, then continued to spam from this account. You've created 3 (4 including this one) accounts. Please also see the prominent note at the top of this page: Requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Won't be doing any citations or inserting any link or making any other account. I will not do that even once. Please do not spam me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arg8130 (talk • contribs)
 * . You will not add the link anyway as long as it's in the blacklist. The response you have already been given is sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

ivmmeta.com and other ivermectine promotors
Websites promoting the use of Ivermectine for covid-19. "Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. "[source https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678] SpamHunters (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina
 * tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina
 * tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina
 * tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina

byscoop.com


Blocked IP user's edits have been almost exclusively about adding this site, usually under the guise of a needed citation. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Multiple other IP's have added this site in July - certainly won't complain about not having to track this until they spam it again.  Ravensfire  (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

qfit.com


Articles to which source is or has been used: Blackjack, Hole carding, Card counting

Objective3000 began editing on WIkipedia on 08/31/2007. Before that date no citations to qfit.com had appeared in Wikipedia. Within the next few months he inserted citations to qfit in at least three different articles. The webpage qfit.com has prominent banner ads to Casino Verite software as well as links to a page where the software can be purchased. The actual name of the author of that software is provided at the bottom of the qfit.com webpage. That Objective3000 is one and the same can be verified by viewing Objective3000’s User page, “author Casino Verite and some other stuff.” 

These are the citations we found inserted by Objective3000 in the first few months of his editing. We did not search his entire history for insertions of qfit.com citations in other Wikipedia articles.





Comment. On reading the text preceding the citation, one wonders if this minutiae belongs in an encyclopedia and does it serve the better purpose of Wikipedia, or does its placement serve another purpose?



Comment. In the process of inserting the citation to qfit.com, Objective3000 deleted two references to the webpage of the Wizard of Odds which had appeared previously, namely 

The Wizard of Odds is by name Michael Shackleford (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael Shackleford), an acknowledged expert in blackjack, who is a professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, has had a book on the subject published by a reputable third-party publisher, and who consults with the gaming industry. One may wonder if the best interests of Wikipedia are served by the two deletions to his webpage and Objective3000’s replacing them by the citation to qfit.com.



Comment. Subsequently, that table of 8 entries was replaced by a more extensive one with additional commentary and 47 references. Compared to the 8 systems listed by Objective3000, the new table included 22 systems, including the names of the developers, namely



Comment. Very shortly thereafter, Objective3000 deleted the entire table, including all 47 references and the names of the mathematician developers, and reinserted the smaller table with the citation to his self-published webpage qfit.com.



The deleted references included those to the actual books published by third-party reputable publishers by expert mathematicians describing their systems. These developers included seminal expert names in the history of blackjack, Bryce Carlson, Lance Humble and Carl Cooper, Fred Renzey, Olaf Vancura and Ken Fuchs, Arnold Synder, Ralph Stricker, Lawrence Revere, Ken Uston, Stanford Wong, and the most famous name in blackjack, Edward O. Thorp, author of the New York Times best-seller Beat the Dealer. To demonstrate the evaluation of their expertise by their peers, Arnold Snyder, Edward O. Thorp, Ken Uston, Stanford Wong, and Lawrence Revere have been elected to the Blackjack Hall of Fame. All have Wikipedia articles about them. Yet Objective3000 deleted the references to their names as developers and all of their books and replaced them with a citation to his self-published webpage qfit.com. One may wonder if the best interests of Wikipedia are served by the deletion of the extensive table and the deletion of 47 references and replacing them by the citation to Objective3000’s self-published webpage qfit.com. Aabcxyz (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This board is for reporting links that are being spammed inappropriately, usually on an ongoing basis; I don't see any ongoing spamming with qfit. You're getting into some deep weeds that aren't within the purview of WP:SBL. If you're disputing whether or not qfit.com is an appropriate source, that belongs at WP:RSN. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

scalefusion.com


After getting a few warnings and a block on the user accounts, has moved on to IP-hopping, including hijacking existing references to point to their site. - MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

allaboutlaw.co.uk
Hi there. This webpage seems to have been blacklisted a long time ago from one or two users spam linking. There are several pages where it would be helpful to reference this resource so would be keen to hear your thoughts.Leyton2021
 * That's exactly what the whitelist is for; if you have a specific example, you can propose it there. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you for your help and will do so. Leyton2021

spinewsagency.in


These accounts, which might be related to each other, have all been spamming this link on List of news agencies and News agencies when trying to add a company that is not notable enough for Wikipedia. I’ve been patrolling the pages for the past few days, and every day it seems like more of these accounts appear and try to add this link.  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  18:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

lgbtqiayouthindia.wixsite.com/home
Hi there. This webpage seems to have been blacklisted a long time ago from one or two users spam linking. There are several pages where it would be helpful to reference this resource so would be keen to hear your thoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.252.24.7 (talk • contribs)
 * That's what the whitelist is for; if you have a specific example, you can propose it there. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

theyouth.com.pk


Hi there. This webpage seems to have been blacklisted a long time ago from one or two users spam linking. There are several pages where it would be helpful to reference this resource so would be keen to hear your thoughts. This is a verifiable national newspaper of Pakistan and sister newspaper of Pakistan Times. I don't know much about the use of Wikipedia, but I try to use it as a source on a Wikipedia page. On saving my edits receive that this site is listed in spam backlist on Wikipedia. I don't know who violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please review this site, If it is according to Wikipedia policies then remove it from the spam list.RanaBilalMughal (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . This is a junk plagiarized content farm with fake author bios and "guest posts" for seo/paid placement. They also seem to offer targeted wikipedia article creation for paid editors. I'd be curious as to why you're claiming it's a "verificable national newspaper" and attempting to link it to a publication that folded 25 years ago? Kuru   (talk)  11:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Their printed newspaper issued from 4 major cities of Pakistan (Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and Peshawar).RanaBilalMughal (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , this was heavily spammed: Sockpuppet_investigations/MNB9911/Archive. IF there is anything worth linking to, you can get that specific page whitelisted on this server  but we will not delist this until either the whitelist has several granted requests in a relative short period of time, or when there has been a widescale discussion (RfC) on e.g. WP:RSN that this is a widely applicable source that is containing important information that we should use.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

cryptopotato.com
Hello there, This website has been blacklisted for quite some time now. I believe from the inquires made on wiki that a spammer who is a competitor tried adding the site to some pages without the express permission of the site owners just to cause harm. The site has no business being on wikipedia and will never have any reason to return back if removed. Kindly remove it from the blacklist and place it on a watch list in case it returns. Thanks Viia o Lanti (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . If it was spammed by a competitor you have no control that it will not happen again.  The blacklist is here to protect wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

econlib.org


The site econlib.org was blacklisted in March 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/Full_list

My search doesn't turn up "econlib" at the Request link, so I don't know why it was blacklisted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=769671529#Immigration_law_refspam_round_3

It is strange to blacklist it, though, because econlib.org has lots of useful out-of-copyright texts-- Marshall's Principles of Economics is what brought this to my attention. It is run by the Liberty Fund, one of whose main purposes is republishing old books. So this is, in a smaller way, like blacklisting Project Gutenberg. Maybe someone was putting in lots of links to original sources that are up at econlib.org, and an admin just saw there was a flurry of links and didn't check to see that they were legit useful links?

If the people at econlib.org were spamming or something, it might be good to at least take xxxhttp://www.econlib.org/library/ off of the blacklist. The front page for their "library" is xxxhttps://www.econlib.org/books/ so you can take a look and see what a useful source site it is.

editeur24 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The particular page I wanted to link to was the following:

xxxhttps://www.econlib.org/library/Marshall/marP.html?chapter_num=13#book-reader

Please pardon any mistakes I've made in presenting this request; I've done lots of Wikipedia edits, but never done this kind of request. The xxx's are so I can get past the blacklisting to show you links.
 * There are lots of hits for econlib in our archives. In any case, if you just want to use one link, the whitelist page is what you want. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. Before, I just searched the log, I think, and I should have searched Talk.


 * The entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August_2017#econlib.org has the discussion. Please do take a look at it. An earlier requestor for delisting makes a very persuasive case that the delisting was for political reasons (the Liberty Fund is libertarian and likes old texts---which is why it's useful), and the responses dare so weak that I wonder about political bias there too. It really is scandalous that econlib.org's library is blacklisted. editeur24 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It is kinda ridiculous we have an entire website (which includes an encyclopedia, and a major blog as well) banned just because of the political biases of one Admin, and on the weak arguments of one user "spamming" all other users of the wikipedia should be punished (no, you deal with the individual, you don't instead censor everyone else as well!) and on the even weaker argument of "bias". (which is not not at all a basis for blacklisting, or is this Admin going to go through a couple of thousand more encyclopedias to look for "bias" to ban those too from wikipedia??) Mathmo Talk 07:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

igniteindiaeducation.com


Hi please unblock the above website, this was blocked a long ago because of few links now there are many pages that are unable to add and they are very helpful content-wise. Please unblock it for public interest and authors' helpful resources. Shriganesh2022 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ "Long ago" as in May of 2021? The link was spammed by at least four different accounts; five if we count your (blocked) attempts to add the link (to Hindu temple architecture and Fashion design). That confirms that ongoing blacklisting is justified. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

silica.co.in


Spam website proposing for global block. Please go through the links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vashi please review references added in this link no 10 this is advertising promotion and should be removed urgently and website should be blocked. Sulhpursukhdhamedit (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Black listing of Janes defense
Janes is one of the most reliable websites in Defense news sector but when I try to add its link in an edit, I cannot. Janes defense and its sister websites are reliable but why they are blacklisted, it is not known please white list it. Thanks Hyperforever (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * janes.com is not blacklisted. Looking at the blacklist filters, you're trying to add Google search links, which we don't allow. Use the direct janes links instead. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

gadgetclock.com


hello, sir my website is blocked on Wikipedia due to your spam filters some of my competitors are doing this to take down my site they are trying to block my site on every platform by doing spamming so my humble request is to unblock my site for all of your Wikipedia network. Hope you will understand my problem. Thank you in Advance. My Site - gadgetclock .com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.159.152.102 (talk • contribs)


 * per my decline at Meta. --GeneralNotability (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that someone at IP User:103.159.152.102 attempted to spam gadgetclock twice on August 18th. I guess a competitor logged into their computer while they were out to lunch. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)