MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2018

InfoWars


I have purged easily a thousand links to these sites used as references in articles. It's not spam, but it's a mix of abuse and well-intentioned but clueless people setting themselves up for strife. I think that int he interests of protecting the project from a mix of Russian bots and Rany from Boise we should blacklist these domains. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This is biased. Infowars is neither spam nor is it in anyone's interests for you to be censoring it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.132.26 (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Any RS/N discussions on these?  I'm not  unwilling, but hesitant to blacklist for reliability reasons, we need community backup for thar. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * One or two: . Actually infowars.com is on the global blacklist for a different abuse. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case my question becomes why we do not add the others there... at least when they are related. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Blacklisting Infowars is the equivalent of Nazis burning books, congratulations on becoming what you hate, gentlemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.132.26 (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's the equivalent of the Weimar republic banning the Völkischer Beobachter. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment both shows lack of arguments based on policy why we need the site and vestsed interest.  Both would be reason to blacklist.  With your last comment you lost all credibility.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * See RSN discussion; the consensus there is very clear that there is no valid use of these sites here.Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

1mg.com
spammers spamming drug company website. Good for nothing. Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Unescaped ".com"
Towards the bottom there are three links in the blacklist: (approximately lines 8852-8854)

It appears that every other link in the blacklist places a backslash before the extension - all the surrounding lines have  or similar, but these three lines do not. Is it intentional, or an accidental oversight? – numbermaniac  03:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is certainly an error. Ruslik_ Zero 20:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ruslik_ Zero 20:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * you are right, though it for 99.9999% will do the same. The unescaped dot stands for any character (includion the dot), which is practically the only character that you will ever encounter there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It may still have some influence on performance. Ruslik_ Zero 10:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

meettheartist.site
Hello, I would like to reference an interview on this site, and could not find this site on the blacklist, but I did find the domain ".site" listed somewhere. As this blacklist does not seem to refer to this particular site, could the blacklist be removed?

This site is run by a professional musician and is a well-respected resource amongst the classical music community. It is not a formal publication, but is well-maintained and regularly updated.

--Lpharris (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This domain does not appear to be blacklisted. Ruslik_ Zero 20:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's odd, because I do get an error message when I try to publish changes with a link through this website cited: "The following link has triggered a protection filter: .site/2017/10/30/alexandra-harwood-composer/ Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked." Lpharris

Could somebody confirm why this site still comes up as blacklisted, despite Ruslik0 confirming it doesn't appear to be on the blacklist? Is it to do with its domain ".site"? Lpharris (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , the domain itself is not blacklisted, but it is caught under a broader rule.  for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * can you look into the riodan regex that causes this? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a direct hit: . No scope for mitigation apart from removing the .site part of the regex. MER-C 09:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * oK, so I stay with, for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

opinionnigeria.com
spammed by
 * and several others.
 * and several others.
 * and several others.
 * and several others.

See Sockpuppet investigations/Vwegba4real. An obviously user-generated, i.e. non-RS, site that is being used for adding spam for a pastor Isaiah Ogedegbe on multiple articles. Ogedegbe's own website, warritimes.wordpress.com (and everything else that includes "warritimes"), is globally blacklisted on WP because of the constant spammimg, but daily socks are doing their best to find ways to outsmart us, and get Ogedegbe and his Warritimes Newspaper (which in spite of its name is a blog with "prophecies", not a news site) mentioned or linked to here (sample edits:, , , , ). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

yarddiant.com


Systematic long-time spamming for a non-notable web developer by multiple socks and single-usage accounts. No possible encyclopedic usage (aside from an unlikely future main article). There is also some activity on sister projects, but probably not enough for a global request? Not sure. The main focus is en-Wiki, but zh-Wiki got a fair amount of such "contributions" recently aswell. GermanJoe (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 19:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

thebankly.com


Repeated spamming with throwaway accounts (and obvious socking) for an ad-funded blog. No possible encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 19:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Market research report spam


Nothing of encyclopedic value in these "refs". Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 19:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

fundera.com
spammed by
 * various other promotional edits
 * various other promotional edits
 * various other promotional edits

Systematic spam in 2016 (warned). Reported in 2018 without action at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_129. Repeatedly misused for spam and promotional COI editing. As a blatant PR platform, their "research" and "rankings" have no encyclopedic value. GermanJoe (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 20:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

imlil-trekking.com
Spammed by:

No encyclopedic value. Simplexity22 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

www.infowars.com
The idea this site is spam is bizarre. It is a political website, controversial as all political sites are. They have some original content, where such pages are better to reference than sites that repost. They also repost some material, for instance from Reuters or RT, but in those cases one can cite the original. Where an Infowars page is the original and is worthty of inclusion, we need to be able to post that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.241.191 (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that it's not a useful or reliable source (hence MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2018, which has the person who brought it up say "It's not spam, but it's a mix of abuse and [...] people setting themselves up for strife.") and even then the .com domain specifically is globally blacklisted for actually being spammed by a bot. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 10:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And regarding 'Where an Infowars page is the original and is worthty of inclusion, we need to be able to post that', then you can make a case at the whitelist for that page. As it is so often unreliable and since it has been spammed, blacklisting is more efficient than having to revert most of this.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

www.army-guide.com


Hello. Could this site be removed from the blacklist? It has very useful lists of military hardware, companies and weapons. Some of which aren't described on any other site. Oranjelo100 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * . The site was spammed and consensus in previous discussions is that it is not a reliable source. Content is aggregated from other sources anyway, so in pretty much every case there should be an alternate source for any content. --Guy (Help!) 09:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

When was the last discussion? Things could have changed since that time. Some informations about military hardware there aren't available anywhere else. Oranjelo100 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and now 2017 (and all except 2013 whereblacklist requests). NO one is requesting whitelisting of specific links that are needed, showing that there is non-replaceable, reliable material (in fact, the 2013 info in the request could not be confirmed).  If you can show us, through successful whitelistings (and WP:RSN may be of help regarding reliability), that the material unique and reliable, then de-listing can be re-considered.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

traininfo.in


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:c081:b1a:759c:9e86:4a76:a7a9 (talk • contribs)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

artofliving.org
No encyclopedic value, being spammed. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I see warnings for COI since 2009, and suggested undisclosed paidediting.  Please clean up the rest. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. will do! Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

celebritynetworth.com
Per Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, requesting addition to XLinkBot revert list Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

famousbirthdays.com
Perennial at RSN (e.g. ), unreliable, frequently proposed by well meaning but mistaken editors. I think this should at least go on the revert list. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Guy (Help!) 20:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * as with "celebritynetworth.com" could you add this also to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList for the same reason? Thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

breitbart.com, occupydemocrats.com

 * WP:BREITBART
 * WP:BREITBART
 * WP:BREITBART

Deprecated sources in the same vein as the Daily Mail. Adding to XLinkBot. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * wouldn't it be better to add it to the daily mail filter (Special:AbuseFilter/869)? Since Xlinkbot doesn't apparently coverage references, adding it to the filter would be more helpful than the revert list Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

secresystems.net
I would like to report secresystems.net. If anyone can figure out how to contact them and get assurances they are working on their problems, they are welcome to. Otherwise, my virus protection was disabled. This happened after I got a message saying it had expired and I should download again, which I ignored.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  14:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: The tech support person, in trying to do something else, told me to restart my computer. My virus protection was working again. No one was able to explain why. She suspected it was updating, but it seems strange it would just disappear. —  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)