MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2019

lifestorybreking.com


Repeated spamming for a personal blog/SEO site (mostly focussing on en-Wiki for now), continued after multiple warnings and 2 blocks. GermanJoe (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would likely have blacklisted this globally ... Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 4 of 18 hits (with 1 of the 4 being good-faith) seemed a bit too few for a global request. But no objection to a Meta request, if you believe it would be helpful. GermanJoe (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it looks like proper seo .. we can see what happens now first, but experience learns that those just don't stop. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

sidnote.co
-- Begoon 09:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- Continued spam after block. GermanJoe (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Begoon 21:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

schooltips.com.ng
Did not heed first warning. to blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

thepavementlightcompany.com

 * (initially posted to User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList, transferred here at helpful suggestion of Newslinger)
 * (initially posted to User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList, transferred here at helpful suggestion of Newslinger)


 * Links within this domain are being spammed to Pavement light (and have been spammed to the simple-en version, and some other en-wiki pages) by a narrowish range of IPs, I assume just one person. The person says that they are a manufacturer of pavement lights, and that they are linking to their own website. They claim that they wrote most of the article text (they didn't; I and another registered editor did, although they did copy a small section of text from their website, which in turn looks as if it may have been copied from another website). They call other editors "competitors" and they have removed links to useful information on the sites of competing firms.. While they have been particularly bad in the past six months (possibly because an inexperienced editor initially tried to revert them manually, accidentally overlooking and leaving some of their spam in the article), this problem started two years ago, at which time I warned them. They then apparently created an account and repeated the edits, adding the link to several other articles as well; and I warned the account, and they abandoned the account without responding. Since then, they seem to have returned to IP editing, and two other people have warned them for COI and promotional editing. No response, no effect. COI bot suggests that they also created another account, and abandoned it after its userpage, which contained the link, was deleted as spam. This may be partly my own fault, as I did initially add one link to this URL, although I've now removed it in favour of the site it looks like it copied from; should have checked more carefully earlier... HLHJ (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Dirk Beetstra; in my previous post I hadn't yet noticed the simple-en spamming, so Newslinger's advice was good, but I've reposted as you suggested. HLHJ (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Rolling shutter et al.

 * links


 * users

(still collecting). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

sslretail.com




Spam from rotating IPs across a range of articles. Pretty much just a retail site (as the name implies), not a useful source. - MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

vegasslotsonline.com
It says the reason for being blacklisted is because of "direct links to (the site's) online slots as "references" that the subject of the slot machine has been licensed for slots." Not sure who included this link but it is probably a rogue SEO agency who thought getting a link on Wikipedia using any means necessary was a good idea. That is an abuse of trust and will not be repeated. The website s not an online slots company, rather it reviews online slots and compares them to other slots. It offers all its games available for free. --RBl1212 (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)RBl1212
 * , the question is how it is of use to Wikipedia. Are the reviews generally of such quality/detail/uniqueness that they can be of use as references, or is its use limited to very few specific cases? Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , Thank you for taking the time to look into this. I wouldn't say the cases are limited; the fact that the website contains a very large database of slots reviews (but also strategy pages) enables it to draw comparisons easier. Slots are added daily after being checked and played through by a number of users. These are then vetted and maintained, also daily. I understand this industry is niche, but in this case, the uniqueness lies in the quantity of games reviewed and the strict, regular quality checks which goes into them . And of course, having such a large number in the portfolio helps with drawing parallels which users find very useful. --RBl1212 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)RBl1212
 * It's on Meta, not locally. I will note that it was spammed pretty extensively, so good luck there. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , but that is what I basically mean: is its use limited to very few specific cases (= 'niche'). Could we first try a couple of whitelist requests for specific goals (i.e. a specific document on vegasslotsonline.com to be whitelisted for a specific page here on Wikipedia with an explanation for that case?  Hence: ? Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, Thank you both! I will take your suggestion and proceed to making a case for whitelisting a few documents first. I apologise for the link(s??) again. That was not how it should have been done in the first place. --RBl1212 (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)RBl1212

WalletHub and CardHub.com


Both of these sites primarily publish sponsored content on credit cards and other personal finance topics. WalletHub is the parent sibling company of CardHub.com. A noticeboard discussion at shows that these sites are generally unusable, and five similar consumer finance sites were previously blacklisted in. —  Newslinger  talk   12:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 14:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

indiantalents.in


Also being added by other editors probably in good faith, but this isn't a reliable source and is being spammed by Vibefounder.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They've left a message here on my talk page that doesn't inspire any confidence that this will stop.  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked Vibefounder as spam-only account. We could add it now to the list, or wait to see if any other spam-only accounts emerge to try to add it again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay - I'll add it to my list of sites I run linksearch on periodically and if it gets spammed again by IP or new editors, I'll request it be blacklisted at that point.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

cbronline
Avoid-Blacklist-trigger-cbronline.com/news/ibm_has_to_recall_150000_l40sxs_to_fix_possible_hole_burning_snag/

I would like to add this article as a source to a new article I wrote about the IBM L40SX.

In the removal discussion here they say "Computer Business Review Online used to be a reasonable news source", and the article I want to cite is from 1993. So I would argue that it's a fine source. I don't need the whole domain to be unblocked, this single URL is fine. Streepjescode (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unblocking one-off links is what the whitelist is for; OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

allresultbd.com


This has been spammed by several IP's on various pages, time to stop it.  Ravensfire  (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. GermanJoe (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

liveleak.com
Most, if not all, uses appear to be copyvios (e.g., unauthorized copies of paywalled news media sources). See WP:ELN and WP:RSN for current discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this. I am not sure that most content is copyvio, but copyvios are very common where the site is used on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 10:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --—  Newslinger  talk   22:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

More disinformation sites


Per the unanimous consensus here. ToThAc (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Thanks for submitting this. —  Newslinger  talk   22:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what "disinformation" means there (as well as who and by what standards decides, whether a particular website is spreadng it), however southfront.org is sometimes invaluable in terms of providing the western reader with the technical information regarding Russian weaponry in English, so I suggest it's removed from the list. When it comes to strict numbers, there's little space for "faking manoeuvres", since everything is easily verifiable across multuple sources. A good example of this is the Laika-class submarine article, where southfront.org gives the same information about the military exhibition as the "bmpd", but presents it in English. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

vishalkranti.com


See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vishalkranti. Being that its a WordPress site, I do not see any usefulness linking the website here on enwiki and highly doubt it will be. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Thanks for submitting this. —  Newslinger  talk   22:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Islamrway


Religious website, only known usages are bad-faith. ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * (for now). A single incident and the block seems to have been effective as deterrence. Please report back here in case of repeated further spamming. --GermanJoe (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

shorturl.at


Used to submit spam at and Dawn Yeoh Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✔️, but the blacklist can't stop additions without the protocol, which is what was done in those cases. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

cryptopotato.com


Slow-moving spam - additions of inappropriate links to cryptocurrency articles from random IPs, e.g.. No current instances remaining, but I find myself removing one of these every couple of days, always from a different IP that has no other edits. Is one of the pay-for-play crypto outlets - David Gerard (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * and I've just added it to the list myself - think I've done this right - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you also add a log entry at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log? The SBHandler user script automates all of this and makes it much easier. —  Newslinger  talk   20:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ooh, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)