MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2022

satoshi-island.com


Commercial link for a bitcoin enterprise based on that island of Vanuatu. That link looks spam to me. See here my request; as it never got a reply, I'm trying this other way for requesting to add it to the blacklist. (NB: The user Zaurus I'm pinging here is a goodfaith user, not a spammer; but he's been involved in the discussion about that link.) -- Womtelo (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC).
 * We don't blacklist every link that looks spammy; we blacklist links that are spammed abusively. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

ticketmaster.com


As far as I can tell, the link was blacklist in 2012 due to vandalism. The UK site (ticketmaster.co.uk) is allowed on wiki, so I see no reason for the .com site to be blacklisted any longer. The discover.ticketmaster site gives useful interviews and info which I have been unable to add with it blacklisted. DPUH (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

thenthsense.com


The usual, linkspamming from sockpuppet accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

berrysfashionhair.com,berryshair.com


Ongoing spam campaign. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

ticketmaster.com


As far as I can tell, the link was blacklist in 2012 due to vandalism. The UK site (ticketmaster.co.uk) is allowed on wiki, so I see no reason for the .com site to be blacklisted any longer. The discover.ticketmaster site gives useful interviews and info which I have been unable to add with it blacklisted. DPUH (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

seasiainfotech.com


The link was blaclisted due to multiple article linking. See the reason here # Kuru # addition; multiple accounts/multiple articles, see tracked links.

We are only linking tech-related articles to wikipedia, which will be useful for readers. I make sure, we will only use only this account for Seasiainfotech domain. Please whitelist our domain.
 * ❌ You will not be linking anything to Wikipedia. We don't remove sites from the blacklist at the request of editors with a WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, I'll not link our domain to wikipedia. But someone else can, if he/she finds it useful. So please remove it from the blacklist. Or let me know what else I can do to get it out from blacklist? Shellysingla (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone entirely unconnected to the website makes a case for its removal from the blacklist, we might consider it. But the answer at this time is no. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

kiwifarms.top
Per above request by — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --— TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

kiwifarms.ru
Considering 4 domain extensions of Kiwifarms have been banned previously, I suggest this one should be banned as well. And given that site has multiple domain extensions active, is it possible, that all of them can be banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navjotjsingh (talk • contribs) 15:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , and grouped together existing entries. Technical question for those more familiar with the blacklist (Beetstra?): Given that they're at four TLDs already, any reason we can't just do &thinsp;?  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please include kiwifarms.top in the list as well. Thank you. Navjot Singh (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * After testing on testwiki and concluding it should work, I've expanded this to &thinsp;. Please let me know if there are any issues.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

royalcentral.co.uk
At Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, this source was deprecated due to resembling a group blog with total lack of oversight. In particular, they are known to host copyright violations, including unattributed copies of Wikipedia articles. The lack of copyright enforcement on the website likely qualifies the site for the blacklist as well, regardless of other content. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 10:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

scirp.org


This website has been blacklisted because they are listed as a probable predatory publisher on Jeffery Beall's list a while ago. However, there is no proof of this publisher being predatory. They have published research papers that are highly cited, and I believe those published research papers can contribute to the science community on Wikipedia.
 * ❌ Per this, it seems that others in the community do not agree with your assessment. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The publisher is only labeled as "particular bad" because one person, Jeffery Beall, says it is. It is labeled as a predatory publisher because one person says so with no transparency or proof. There is also no proof that the articles published by this publisher is "bad" or scientifically incorrect. Also regarding spam, it is the individual authors who are trying to spam their published work on wikipedia. Wouldn't it be better to blacklist that specific article and not the entire domain? There are research papers and articles on this website that can add value to wikipedia. Southolivestreet (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , what is your connection to the website? GeneralNotability (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am a researcher, and I have worked with SCIRP for quite some time. I have published several papers on their platform. Southolivestreet (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

SCIRP is by far one of the worst predatory publishers out there. Only OMICS Publishing Group is worst. This isn't based only on Beall's opinion (who is absolutely right here). Cabell's considers it "a well-known predatory publisher" and the Norwegian index gives it a value of 0 (worthless/unacademic) rating. And if you work with SCIRP, I'd strongly urge you to reconsider that affiliation. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

netnewsledger.com
Can't determine the origin for the blocking of this website, but it is a reputable news website covering the Thunder Bay region of Ontario, Canada. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted in 2021 on meta. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a reputable site. PICKLEDICAE🥒 13:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on? - Floydian τ ¢ 16:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

fibre2fashion.com


This website seems to have many potentially useful reports about the fashion industry and stocks/prices for goods. I tried to use it as a source for the presence of someone on a board of directors.

This website was blacklisted in 2008, alongside 10 others in the same message by User:MER-C with the simple explanation "Caught red-handed for the fourth time today." (I think this refers to link spamming.) I believe this was relevant at the time but should be reconsidered 14 years later.

As this is my first time making a report like this, if this request is rejected I would appreciate a quick note informing me what I missed and how to check for myself in future. JayYellSee (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The link you were trying to add was just a recycled press release, which is also available here at BizJournals. Had it not been available there would be the best course of action. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for finding the alternative source also. JayYellSee (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

gcaptain
(when I added .com above and the link template I could not save) Was blacklisted in 2010 due to spam. If you google for "Wikipedia gcaptain blacklist" you will see some 2010 discussion on their forum. However although the original blacklisting may have been correct I think 12 years is long enough for the offence to be spent. Site seems OK now at least according to Google, as it is often the first useful result in my searches if I need maritime stuff. Although the info can sometimes be found elsewhere looking further wastes my time and that of other editors. I have no conflict of interest. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

zepisaafricansafaris.com


This website is blacklisted but we dont see the reasons. However is not a spam webiste, is a travel website with provide different source of information about Tanzania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul lekuona (talk • contribs) 07:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are we in your statement ( ' we dont see ' )...? The plural form suggests you represent some group of people, probably an organization, possibly the site's owning company. If it is so, you need to learn—and follow—the Wikipedia policies on Conflict of interest and, possibly, on Paid editing. --CiaPan (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Zero usefulness to the project. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

seasiainfotech.com


This website seems to be useful for tech industry. I tried to use it as a source for metaverse development.

This website was blacklisted in 2021, alongside many others in the same message by User:Kuru with the explanation "multiple accounts/multiple articles, see tracked links" (I think this refers to link spamming.) I believe this was relevant at the time but should be reconsidered after almost one year later.

As this is my first time making a report like this, if this request is rejected I would appreciate a quick note informing me what I missed and how to check for myself in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.242.66 (talk • contribs)


 * Probable WP:COI from this IP editor, see and .  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Requesting IP is part of same range that landed this site on the blacklist. Please promote your site elsewhere. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thecaptions

 * Link

Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Spammers:


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

illuminem.com




News aggregator/republisher with no original content. Usual sockpuppet technique - when they get warnings about their spamming they move on to a new account. - MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Just noting that spamming continues. - MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Swarmhr
See COIBot report Constantly added to the Quiet quitting page. Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

filmcompanion.in
I have specific webpages of this website to be whitelisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2022/09 for over 6 weeks now with no replies yet, having to edit war with the archiver bot several times now. Now, I think, it would be okay to request it's removal from the blacklist itself because of the reasons I already outlined there. Quote "This website's reliability has never been questioned on Wikipedia. But it was added to blacklist due to spamming (MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2021). I need this particular reference in order to add it to Nijeder Mawte Nijeder Gaan reference #6, as it explains the features of the music video section. It was previously a part of the article, see Special:Permalink/1102890332, but I had to remove it for IABot to run on the article." There is another filmcompanion link requested to be whitelisted right above my request at the 2022/09 archive. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ A slow response on the whitelist board is not a valid reason for blacklist removal. I've added the last three links you requested to the whitelist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for whitelist addition. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Linksys-extender-setup
A third party website continually being spammed on Linksys WRT54G series.

Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Users

informitv.com
Unable to provide references to "informitv.com" This is news site indexed by Google News, regularly providing news about internet television and video, continuously published since 2004, ISSN 1759-8796. It was apparently blacklisted in 2008. I am not clear why. Please could we consider reinstating to allow citations. Tellytext (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This was spammed heavily in 2008 and blacklisted as a result. for situations where alternative links are not available. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That was in 2008, over 14 years ago. Is there any reason not to remove this domain from the blacklist now? Meanwhile I have requested specific links for whitelisting. Tellytext (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Being indexed by Google news does automatically confer WP:RS status on a site. The links you requested for whitelisting are simply press releases sourced from other sites. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an industry news site. Some of the material will have been sourced from press releases. That does not mean that the entire site should be blocked as spam. Tellytext (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

wendag.com

 * Crappy website edit-warred into Canaanite religion as if it were a WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit warring from a single user on a single page is not a criteria for blacklisting. Is there any evidence that it's been spammed by multiple users? OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been used in another article, however it would be stretching it to call its previous use "spam". tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

movi88.club


This site appears to be a new film-based social network. Multiple editors (or, more likely, one person running multiple sock accounts) has been spamming it on this and other wikis. (See FR and ZH.) Woodroar (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

darkweblink.com


Link has been being spammed by these IPs and throwaway accounts over the past couple of days. They add one link and change IP/accounts. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 00:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

digitalinformation.in


Adbots appear to be trying to replace articles with advertisements for this site, e.g. Special:AbuseLog/33461974.  General Ization Talk  05:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

salvagedata.com
I couldn't find my site on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log and I have no idea why it was blocked. There is no reason why the site should be blocked. I wanted to add it to the list of references for the Data recovery page, as now the 8th reference (which mentions Data recovery software) is a dead link.
 * ❌ Your site was blacklisted globally on meta due to spam efforts. To save you time, I can assure you meta won't remove it based on a request from a site owner. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

paultan.org


The above user spent over a year making edits which only added this URL. I've blocked the account for REFSPAM.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There are over 500 existing links in articles that should be cleaned up first. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)