MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2018

nethority.com, pricekart.com

 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/nethority.com
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/pricekart.com
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/nethority.com
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/pricekart.com
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/nethority.com
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/pricekart.com

We have various redlinked users adding links to articles on nethority.com, a non-RS site. www.nethority.com/ however calls itself "Best SEO Agency In India". This probably shouldn't be encouraged. e.g.

pricekart.com is a sales site, and is getting similar links added by the same editors. e.g.

The editors add various other wikilinking edits, but I'm pretty sure the point is these links. They tend to get reverted very quickly, so you won't find a lot of examples on a search - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

klassik-resampled.de
on the Blacklist since 2012 after adding several links for uncommercial digital realisations of Bachs Clavierübungen and other often rare classical music in multiple Language versions of Wikipedia. This was misunderstood as "Spam", meanwhile a music page with thousands of uncommercial recordings of rare classical music can contribute alot and has done so in many Wikipadia-articles before. But there was never any abusive or obnoxious activity nor any other breach of any Wiki-rule from that domain at all. Neither before blacklisting nor in any of the years after. Every link to that site was always a legitime and always regulary approved reasonable contribution to a certain article. The german Indiepedia has recently removed that domain from their Blaclist to allow links see https://www.indiepedia.de/index.php?title=Update2018. There never have been any substancial reason to put or to keep that domain on any blacklist at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c7:e729:e701:9132:3da0:d77d:8b92 (talk • contribs)


 * not blacklisted locally, to request global removal, or  to ask for local whitelisting of specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, this was spammed, very hard and a lot of it. I will decline de-listing on meta for that reason.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is simply not true at all. Yes there have been after several years of contributions to several Wikipediaarticles in sum quite a bunch of Links. But none of them was in any sense "Spam" but always reasonable contributions to the certain articles. None of those links ever could be regarded as breach oof any Wikipedia rules. So to pretend that there ever was any spam is simply not true and withut any proof. Just show me only one link which wasa set without being a reasonable contribution to the certain article in which is was set. If you cant than you jus pretend wrong things. That should be considered more seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They were unsolicited additions that continued after requests to stop. Wikipedia defines that as spam.  Anyway, we cannot delist here, so either you go to meta (which I don’t give much chance without a significant number of whitelisted links), or you whitelist specific links.   —Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on "unsolicited" contributions. That is in no way a criterium for Spam. That I fixed the first removed links based on the strong opinion, that for instance free soundexamples of music of seldom composers one can not listen to in any other way, is scarcly a criteria to mark all contributions I have made over years (always with regular approvement from all Admins) suddenly all as "Spam" this is just a tremendously superficial lie based on alledged "quantitative" arguments, which will easily make everyone who contributes in Wikipedia over years "unsolicited" to a much more abhorrescent spammer than my links ever could be. No, if you realy want to work for the quality of Wikipedia, you should not ignore the quailty of a contribution so completly for really unreasonable "quantitative" arguments, which apply to everyone who contributs here frequently much more. And yes since you pretended, you want to discline similar request for the Metablacklist than there is enough necessity to ask you for a more serious argumentation than the awful superficial argument my contributions are "unsolicited" (whos are not in Wikipedia???) and many. So please stay objective. No one who frequently contributes "unsolicited" over years needs a lot of Whitelist demands to do so. To ask me for that without any proof that any of my contribution was ever not a reasonable contribution to the certain article (all have been approved by Admins up to the day someone started that Spam asumption 2012) or abusiv or obnoxious in any way is simply awful wrong and damages the quality of Wikipedia more than you might pretend to save it with arguing like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You chose to use the same arguments. There were several editors involved in stopping your additions, which did not follow our inclusion standards.  Here there is nothing to be done.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

So to care for your message: this is no accusation: Just to mention that I argue with "the same arguments" is not an answer to my question. It is up to the responsible to prove that their decision has a substancial proveable reason. So just show me any of the Links made from blackliste URL which mostly have been for years approved part of the article that has not reasonable relation to the article in which it was posted or have been in any way abusive or obnoxious. And yes the same music recoding could be a reasonable contribution to the same article in ifferent language versions withpout being "crossspamming". So I just ask for that prove for any concrete link justifying tto be regarded as abusive or obnoxious. That is no (same) argument nor an accusation. It is just a simple question, which no one has answered here. How could it be so difficult to answer such a simple question, which is nothing else as the question for a substancial reason for blacklisting. Again this is no accusation, just a simple and direct question fr the responsible which is not yet answeered at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

OK no answer is an aswer to: You are not able to give any substancial conrete prove for the pretended Spam-Character and just want to keep it on the blacklist without substnacial reason. This again is no accusation. Wikipedia is yours, you can do with it what ever you want you are not obliged to justify anything what you are doing with your own wikipedia. It is your good right to do what ever you want. I understood. Than just try another question: You pretend links from the requested Domains "did not follow our inclusion standards". So I just ask you again to give me for that pretention any concrete proof, which certain link ever has breached any of those "inclusion standards" and why it was possible that they nevertheless have been approved by multiple admins over years. Just a simple question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Answer: someone was adding links to articles that were not wanted. They were reverted and the editor was told to stop.  They continued adding and starting to sock.  That is what WEcall spamming, and that resulted in (futile) blocks.  Hence we blacklist to ensure that the spamming stops.  You chose not to stop and discuss, you persisted in adding the links, not listening to why we did not want them.  Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, nor a vehicle for advertising.  That YOU think that the blacklisting is wrong is the wrong complaint, that is NEVER a reason to delist: .  Follow my suggestions and make your case individually (specific links for specific pages with proper reason why they add needed info and see what result you get.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

opsocialmedia.com
Site selling ghost followers being spammed into WP. Ugh. Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

serviceobjects.com
IP obviously connected (see WHOIS) to this "contact vaidation services" company adding spam links to the company's email-signup-walled promotional materials on a number of articles. Has been going on for a few months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * this has an own article (Service Objects) and I see only spam by the one IP that you already blocked. I am for now a bit reluctant to blacklist this, but would do so if this now continues on other IPs/accounts.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for checking it out, I did not see that article. Good enough for now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

angelopedia.com
Following on the now-closed discussion at RSN here, I have removed the ~650 links from mainspace, and this can be blacklisted without disrupting normal editing. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Please disable the links in the RSN discussion, otherwise archiving will choke.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Beetstra, done. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

s-fahl.de
on the Blacklist since 2012 after adding several links from the subdomain klassik.s-fahl.de for uncomercial digital realisations of often rare classical music multiple Language versions of Wikipedia. This was misunderstood as "Spam", meanwhile a music page with thousands of uncommercial recordings of rare classical music can contribute alot and has done so with the regular approval by the Wiki-admins in many Wikipadia-articles before. But there was never any abusive or obnoxious activity nor any other breach of any Wiki-rule from that domain at all, neither in the yers before blacklisting, nor in the years after. Every link to that site was always a legitime and reasonable contribution to the certain article. There never have been any substancial reason to put or to keep that domain on any blacklist at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c7:e729:e701:9132:3da0:d77d:8b92 (talk • contribs)


 * not blacklisted locally, to request global removal, or  to ask for local whitelisting of specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, this was spammed, very hard and a lot of it. I will decline de-listing on meta for that reason.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is simply a Lie. There have been only reasonable contributions how much it ever have been over the years none of them could be regarded as "Spam". It was completly wrong to remove and blacklist them and just because I and some others tried to fix that mistake is scarcly a formal but in no way a reasonable argument. It is just a pretext justify personal mistakes of those who have been responsible for that mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Same arguments. We are done here.  This is not getting you anywhere.  Stop.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My proposal was to remove that URL from the blacklist. I think it is fair to ask for a verifyable reason for that blacklisting. This was not yet done. I have not seen any concrete valuable proof. So please allow wme just to keep asking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:E729:E701:9132:3DA0:D77D:8B92 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that is your proposal, but that cannot be done HERE. As to your request:
 * External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_12
 * A report showing a multitude of accounts and IPs. Follow the 'contribs' links and see that these editors have been adding these links to external links sections.  Those were deemed by established editors to be not useful, and have been removed.
 * addition by Fahl5, removal, re-addition, re-removal, re-addition, re-removal
 * per WP:ELBURDEN (then and now) - it is on the person who wants to ADD the links to show that they are appropriate and suitable. Insisting to reinsert them without discussion is not doing that, that is to be determined on the talkpage, or on some central place.
 * In conclusion, since you insisted to insert that link, multiple times without first discussing (after being challenged after the first addition) is enough reason to impose sanctions to stop you. The first choice would be to block your account.  However, since this behavior is performed by multiple editors (IPs and named acocunts) blocking is, obviously, not enough (you would just make a new account or take another IP and continue).  That resulted in the material being blacklisted so it HAS to be discussed before allowing re-addition.
 * I here enforce that by asking you to ask for whitelisting for each individual link you want to add, and make a case for each page where you want that. Note that I will sanction hammering of the discussion for whitelisting page (blocks or other manners), and that will just result in blanket refusal to cooperate (i.e. blanket denial of whitelisting requests, whether there would be merit to whitelist or not).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

airpurifierfirst.com








This site has been repeatedly spammed since at least August 2017. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

targetedwebtraffic.com, seo25.com


spammed by



Professional SEO sites, spammed with deceptive editing (misleading edit summaries, corrupting existing valid references). No possible encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: it's possible that this is a joe job from competitors, but I'll keep the report here for documentation - up to admins to decide either way. GermanJoe (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The off-wiki fight is not our problem.  This stops the disruption to wikipedia, WP is not a vehicle for that.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

leadelaria.com
Official site of Lea DeLaria, not spam. Included in her bio via (the old official site just redirects to the new domain). ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Blacklisted in 2012 as fake official site. Looks like current register is from 2015, but ownership is hidden.  Going to AGF on this one.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

back.ly
Being used by a persistent IP hopper to vandalize Charles Krauthammer. This is a URL shortener service that should be prohibited like any other.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request
On page MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008, if you click on "Submit an edit request", instead of taking you to a normal edit request submission, it takes you to Requests for page protection. This needs to be fixed.

Separately, to fix numerous lint errors, please replace MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008 with what is now at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008/sandbox, but please make the following two additional changes: On these two lines, remove the start comment markup:

I was not permitted to save with these links active; I assume admins can override. Doing this will yield the same page appearance, but without the lint. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

bewikii.com and onam2018.com


Two external links being spammed by a sock farm (Sockpuppet investigations/Pichu4). Spamming of both links has continued today after previous accounts and IPs were blocked. Deli nk (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

salmonsolutions.co.uk
The spam-blacklist log doesn't list the website so the reasons why it got blacklisted are unclear. There is some content about roofing that is either hard to find online or the website is ranking high on search engines for and also there is some nice imagery on the website that can be used on the Wikipedia pages for metal roofing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okcid1 (talk • contribs)


 * not blacklisted locally, to ask for local whitelisting of specific links for specific pages   --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

tripindicator.com removal
Please, kindly remove tripindicator.com from Spam. I am not quite familiar with Wikipedia spam. I just read it up. No more spam links from me. Please. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beston77 (talk • contribs)


 * , not blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

tripindicator.com


Cite spam for travel site. Addition of false reference information and unrelated spam links. Unreliable - no encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * GermanJoe, please can you kindly remove www.tripindicator.com from blacklist? I will never add any spam link to Wikipedia. I just read the guideline on spam, and it explained everything to me. No more spam from me please. Thank you. Beston77 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , just to be clear: the 17 previous additions already qualify as spam (most of them with misleading reference details, several of them not even relevant for the "sourced" information, some directly pointing to sales pages). Anyway, the request itself and your promise to cease further spamming will be evaluated by an uninvolved administrator. GermanJoe (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , though last warning, user:Beston77, to adhere to ALLpolicies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

nationsroot.com


Spamming multiple biography pages with links from the website.--Xzinger (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

freebooksummary.com


Spamming for an essay-writing website (masquerading as essay-hosting site). Continued spamming with an obvious sock after final warning (at EricaFl). No possible encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

phon.pe

 * several 2405.* IPs
 * several 2405.* IPs
 * several 2405.* IPs

Referral spam related to PhonePe to "make money by installing a verified and trusted app" (yeah sure ...), the domain has no possible encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

phon.pe



 * I meant to write phon.pe (without the additional "e"). Could you fix the blacklist entry please accordingly? Sorry for the hassle. (I have already changed the section header to the correct spelling). GermanJoe (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

mistaken entry
Per above at. —Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

mercola.com
I have just purged references to this site yet again. I remove from dozens to hundreds per month. The site is worthless as a source and riddled with adds, but most of the actual additions are probably in good faith. What do we think, start managing it here or do I just keep cleaning up? Guy (Help!) 18:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * do we have a RSN discussion with the same conclusion? Otherwise maybe get that backup, and have XLinkBot do the honours while that happens?  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It gets mentioned occasionally, but it's so self-evidently unreliable that I don't think there's any need for discussion - the article on Mercola makes it clear that we're not going to be using it as a source any time soon. XLinkBot would be handy. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList.

Although I also think that the site qualifies, unfortunately I agree with the point that we do not blacklist solely for unreliability, unless there is clear consensus to do so. XLinkBot will do until then. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

iqpc.com ?
Site was blacklisted in December 2007, the reason is unclear to me, because I lack the knowledge to parse the log. a). — Does it still have to remain blacklisted, or could the block be lifted ? b). — If it must remain blocked, would it somehow be possible to at least link to the archived version of the page (https://web.archive.org/web/20080704130516/https://www.iqpc DOT com/UK/luv/ediary) in an article ? — By the way, the original is a dead url anyway. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

lahemptours.com
Spamming by anon reverted at Kush (cannabis) & elsewhere ☆ Bri (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 08:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

777score.com
spammed in 2017 by with a final warning. Continued recurring spam with multiple throwaway accounts in 2017/2018 (see COIBot report). A private sports statistics collection - no foreseeable encyclopedic usage (per WP:RS and WP:EL). GermanJoe (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 08:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

tcsteluguchristiansongs.com and YouTube channel
and its associated YouTube channel

(most linksummary functions don't seem to work for such a link) Spammed by throwaway accounts / likely socks: Repeated dead link spam for blog and YouTube channel, continued after final warning (on IP talkpage). No encyclopedic usage for either link. GermanJoe (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * please blacklist the main website tcsteluguchristiansongs.com too, spamming continues in Telugu Christian despite a final warning. GermanJoe (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

main


—Dirk Beetstra T C 13:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

kutt.it


Persistent spam links placed by IPs from India, including:
 *  General Ization Talk  14:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 *  General Ization Talk  14:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 *  General Ization Talk  14:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 *  General Ization Talk  14:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 *  General Ization Talk  14:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 *  General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 14:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , URL shortener. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

pqn.pw
IP making only spam edits, changes IP when blocked
 * <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 19:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 19:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 19:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 19:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 19:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * (Tweaked the formatting a bit (no "www" in report headers) and added a link summary. GermanJoe (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC))


 * you did not even catch half of them.  to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

eyerys.com
Spammed by
 * several single-purpose IPs.
 * several single-purpose IPs.

Systematic cite spam for marketing site. Usage of single-purpose IPs and occasional deceptive edit summaries. No foreseeable encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)