Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive Oct 1

bollypedia.in
- has gone out of their way to add multiple links to this site to various articles, often in inappropriate places like in the lede to confirm the name of a film, or at the top of a section. Seems like clear promotion to me. Here they are adding inline external links to various soundtrack titles, ostensibly to drive traffic to that site. Here are some other examples:. Based on this link, the site looks like a meaningless blog with a fancy color scheme instead of a clear editorial policy. As of this note, the link was only found in a handful of articles, and appear to mostly have been added by Morya raj. Katti Batti, Talvar (film), Jazbaa, Shaandaar, Pyaar Ka Punchnama 2, Singh Is Bliing. I'll remove the links. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Found another SPA, adding links to this site. . Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Rajendrak21 added another. Warned again. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation spam by User:Biotechparadise
This user's activity is mainly adding citations. The same citation is added to multiple articles. Furthermore, the citations linked are to recently published scientific papers (primary sources). The papers have a few common authors. Examples:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benzanthrone&diff=prev&oldid=681277647

The following 3 have the same citation:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hep_G2&diff=prev&oldid=678723550
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhein_%28molecule%29&diff=prev&oldid=678723117
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthraquinone&diff=prev&oldid=678722257

The following 5 have the same citation:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeast&diff=prev&oldid=582630368
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baker%27s_yeast&diff=prev&oldid=582565006
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arsenic_toxicity&diff=prev&oldid=582564422
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arsenic_poisoning&diff=prev&oldid=582541829
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arsenic&diff=prev&oldid=582521869

A previous incident involving articles related to epilepsy is recorded here. --92.30.33.234 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This user keeps adding unvalid sources of governments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.125.117 (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up some of the latest edits from this account and left a warning. I assume older edits, including the 5 above, need to be reviewed? --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

countrysideamishfurniture.com

 * links


 * accounts

A highly promotional website being used as a ref, fails WP:RS. Possible WP:COI and promotional username (now soft-blocked). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Various blog spam

 * Links

I believe that this is linked to this incident. Can someone take a closer look? -KH-1 (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Spammers:
 * It probably is. Blacklisted. MER-C 14:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

punjabipollywood.com
Noticed this edit where IP 124.253.193.153 (geolocates to Ludhiana, India, in the Punjab state; ISP: Quadrant Televentures) stuffs a link to this site at the bottom of the article. Started poking around, found this edit at another article, by 124.253.70.191, which also geolocates to the Punjab state, and which is also from Quadrant Televentures. This was followed up by three more links to poorly-written articles at the same site. Found this addition by 124.253.195.173 (Quadrant, Punjab state). More link spam here by 124.253.70.191 and another by the same IP. Then this by 124.253.89.167 (Same geolocation and ISP) In this edit 124.253.232.37 (same person) replaces other bad external links with his bad external links. This edit by 124.253.99.125 replaces PunjabiGrooves with punjabipollywood.com. Geolocates to a different state, Chandigarh, but same ISP, Quadrant.

This edit by user Deepcruze could just be an innocent use of a crappy reference. Article creation by Deepcruze with punjabipollywood.com reference. I've left one link at Rishita Monga because the article would otherwise be unsourced, but flagged it as needing a better ref. There are also two draft articles Draft:Jattan Dian Dildariyan and User:Prabhjot.coldfire/sandbox that contain links to this site. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mp3Songs49.com
I've indeffed user who was spamming articles with this site (note his own user page in this version. He was clearly here to promote his sites, so it may be worth adding to the blacklist.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation spam by 64.233.243.71
To a book:
 * Doane, James (2015). Machine Analysis with Computer Applications for Mechanical Engineers. Wiley

Samples:, , , and just about every other edit made by this IP.

He has been warned by other users. Per this the author is from Indiana and so is the IP. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Removed all occurences (but feel free to double-check). In several cases the added content was simply copied or plagiarized from sub-articles, all references lacked page numbers. Some of the described terms could not be found via Google. The book is, by its own admission in the introduction (a preview is available), primarily intended for undergraduates. ==> In short: blatant self-promotional spam. GermanJoe (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bookgeeks.in
This looks spammy, a perhaps two-person review team and lots of affiliate links to sellers. Came across it as an EL at Sidin Vadukut.Would appreciate a second opinion. Brianhe (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Flashesandflames.com
Long-term WP:CITESPAM, several IPs whose contributions are almost entirely adding links or material cited to this self-published blog. I have warned the latest IP.

Recent IPs:

Older IPs:

January ( talk ) 12:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"danisnotonfire"
spamming unrelated articles with links to some youtube guy's article Aecho6Ee (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not spam, but blatant vandalism. I'm surprised the account hasn't been blocked already. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

in-cubator.org




Looks like spamming from a dynamic ip. Recommending blacklisting given that this has been going on since late last year. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Several warnings, response on 5, spamming more on 7.  Enough.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Andrewjohn1315


Needs block - SEO-spamming account, several warnings, no useful contributions.

Just wondering (with dozens of admin-boards), is that the best place to report such accounts? GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Here or maybe even AIV with a blatant case like that.   Kuru   (talk)  12:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Blacklist Handler 'gadget'
On meta, there is a script available (admins there only) to help adding links to and removing links from the global blacklist. I have some time ago advertised to some that I was working to get this script available here as well (I asked first to have it ported). I have now finished porting it (first to WT:SBL; later to others), and adapting it to the greatly different environment available here on en.wikipedia. Here is serves multiple source pages (discussions here, spam blacklist, XLinkBot's revertlist and the local COIBot reports), and 2 target pages (the blacklist and the revertlist).

The script can be found here. The easiest way of activating it on your admin account on en.wikipedia (it should refuse to work on non-admin accounts) is by including  as a line in your vector.js (user: /vector.js).

The script adds buttons next to the respective edit-section-buttons for the specific sections on:
 * WT:WPSPAM, every section
 * 'add RL' to add to XLinkBot RevertList
 * 'add BL' to add to the Spam-blacklist
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist
 * 'add RL' to add to XLinkBot RevertList on the addition request section headers
 * 'add BL' to add to the Spam-blacklist on the addition request section headers
 * 'remove BL' to remove from the Spam-blacklist on the removal request section headers
 * 'decline' buttons to both the addition and removal request section headers (to quick decline addition/removal).
 * the domain pages under the tree 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local' (see Category:Local_COIBot_Reports - especially the open ones which tend to be recent)
 * 'add RL' to add to XLinkBot's RevertList on the addition request section headers
 * 'add BL' to add to the Spam-blacklist on the addition request section headers
 * 'close' to quick-close the report
 * 'reverted' to note that you reverted all additions (also results in the report being closed)
 * User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList
 * 'add RL' to add to XLinkBot's RevertList on the addition request section headers
 * 'add BL' to add to the Spam-blacklist on the addition request section headers
 * 'remove RL' to remove from XLinkBot's RevertList on the removal request section headers
 * 'decline' buttons to both the addition and removal request section headers (to quick decline addition/removal).

Upon clicking the add/remove buttons, the respective section is opened for editing (and text can be added to both the section text as well as the summary), and the code extracts the domain(s) from the 'LinkSummary' template(s) in the respective sections on WT:WPSPAM, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList, or the domain from the pagename for the /Local reports. And after pressing 'save and ..' the domain(s) is/are converted to (a) regex(es), and is/are added to the respective target list. After confirming (whether the addition is processed correctly) it will also automatically create a log-item in the log for the page which includes your username, the source discussion for the decision, and a link to the addition/removal diff (removals are logged as a new log item, it does not remove the old addition from the log).

Please let me know if there are still things that don't function properly, bugs or considerations. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC) cross-posted to WT:SBL; User:JzG is acknowledged for inadvertently showing me bugs and errors while using the script.

False positives
There are lots of lovely instructions for what to do with the spammers but there is nothing here nor on any of the report pages on how to resolve false positive reports... Gnangarra 14:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * - false positive reports? What do you mean with false positive reports?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - False positive an error in the data being reported, in this case they are not spam accounts nor are the links being used spam links as has occurred with WikiProject Spam/Local/encore.slwa.wa.gov.au its unreasonable to even associate or suggest that a GLAM is spamming. Where as this project makes only bad faith provisions for all results no information is provided for those incidences of false positives which are the result of good faith activity Gnangarra 07:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I though that that is where this discussion is going .. again. First of all, the report already says "Your appearance there does not mean you or one of the other accounts named here have a conflict of interest with adding the link, or that you or one of the other accounts named here were spamming the link: it may very well be accidental overlap, or a good link that was picked up by the bot accidentally, or a good link which is nonetheless under investigation of the WikiProject's Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam.".  The existence of such a report, or any report, is NOT an accusation that the person is spamming - a human editor who is reacting to it might be making that accusation.  Such a reaction however on good faith additions should be met with a strong admonishment.  Every bot-generated report should be met on a case-by-case basis.  Your reaction here should be 'hey, a new editor who has interesting material to offer, lets make contact!'
 * However, I take distance from the remark that a GLAM would never be spamming Wikipedia. There are several instances of GLAM institutions where the sole reason of the activity of the person who was adding links / editing pages was for promotional reasons.  They were not here to expand our understanding of the subjects.  One case was where edits were mainly to the institution pages, and addition of copies of data from their website (resulting in several duplicate pages - we already had pages on the subject under a different name).  Another case was similar though more overenthousiasm than malicious (linking their institution whereever they could).  A third possibility is that the editor is not actually a GLAM, but editors from an SEO company that is there to improve the web-visibility of an institution.  Many companies and institutions do hire SEO companies to optimise their web-visibility, and that includes institutions that have good information to offer.
 * That a link is good, and that an organisation is good, and that an editor is in good faith here to improve the encyclopedia does not mean that they start misdirected (in a way as in the second example in the previous section) and that their additions do need a follow-up. The reports are to signify that (and most of them do get ignored because the edits are genuine) we have someone who has some form of interest in a site starting to edit, and the response should be tailored to the case.
 * Do note, that being a GLAM does not exclude you from our m:Terms of use.
 * I hope this clarifies. I'll have a look at this specific case.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont dispute what you are saying hence the use of false positive to describe the issue. My question/observation is that there no instruction for the honest editor to follow to where they can get answers or an explanation of what to do next. There isnt even any instructions on that page nor in the banner the only project it links to is here where all the instructions are on dealing with the negative aspects nothing to cover what to do with false positives.... As the Wikimedian working with the SLWA I noticed the page and asked the question, having worked with many groups such an interaction typically results in the group moving on if the instructions arent clear that just adds to negative perceptions of Wikipedia. Gnangarra 11:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is, what do you want to do? I am not going to do anything with that report, I am practically ignoring it.  You can do the same.  Or do you want to follow up/talk to the editor/warn them/block them?  I don't, I think they are doing fine (and I recon that they are already being interacted with).  Do you want the report deleted?  Talk to the creator (or, in this case, the owner of the bot that created it), or MfD it (note that the bot may re-create).
 * For a 'false positive' you need a metric that you want to measure, or even an accusation that you want to make. If your metric is 'Look, this link is spam' then this is a false positive, is your metric 'Look, this user is spamming this link' then also this is a false positive, if your metric is 'this user has a conflict of interest with the link they are adding' then this is just a positive (whether that specific COI is a problem is a different question, that can not be answered by a bot), if your metric is 'are there any users which focus on link additions of libary/museum/etc. websites and with whom we want to get in contact' then this is also a plain positive.
 * There are no clear instructions of what to do next, because maybe there is not a set of rules to follow on what to do next, and that is because mainly the 'next action' is 'move on, do nothing', the report is just a report. When the bot creates a report, there is a 'concern'.  Whether the 'concern' needs to be followed up upon depends on the situation, and many reports do not need action (or at worst a friendly welcome and/or a bit of support).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Straight SEO abuse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WendyVinca/SlimWare_Utilities It's under wiki/User: so I don't know if that counts. If not feel free to disregard.

It's clear cut + pasted marketing bumpf for dubious software. I know it's cut and pasted because there's multiple copies of sections. 172.9.158.213 (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Arkansas
spamming external links to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas. Previously warned by a template on talkpage. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunate, this linked-to encyclopedia looks like a legitimate educational resource along the lines of HistoryLink for the Pacific Northwest. Just throwing in this note as an appeal to not blacklist it. – Brianhe (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See John Hornor Jacobs, written by the spamming account in June, and the topic's EoA page (Last Updated 5/13/2015). Maybe the site has valuable information, but this kind of spam and publicity activities for local topics should be stopped nonetheless (the article's claim "Southern Gods ... ended up winning a Bram Stoker Award." is verifiable false, see list of Bram Stoker awards). I fixed that and removed the EoA links from the article. Some of their useful external links should be added by uninvolved editors on a case-by-case basis. GermanJoe (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a statewide encyclopedia, with legitimate information, and not the work of a local historical society. In the US, statewide recognition, comparable to The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, isn't considered something purely local. Better to contact them in person, and explain The Wikipedia Library/Cultural Professionals best practices. --Djembayz (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and a concrete example of its non-local subject matter is the citation used at Mountain Meadows massacre and Mormon theology. The Mormon pioneers and the history that preceded them are a foundational topic in the history of the Western United States. – Brianhe (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Djembayz' suggestion as well. If clarifying our guidelines (Library, WP:EL, WP:RS) stops the indiscriminate addition of such links, the problem could be solved without additional hassle for all. Some EoA articles are certainly written by topic experts and contain useful information. But other articles written by non-experts to raise a topic's publicity (like the linked Jacobs article) should not be used. Also, per WP:EL "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" should not be linked as External link. GermanJoe (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I went through some of the links yesterday, and found indeed a mix. There are some where the external link does add (significant) to the page, but also many where there is hardly a significant link between the subject of a page and the content of the article (I recall a page where our subject was a woman, and the woman was only mentioned in the linked article about a completely different subject). Other links indeed do not add anything to the article, they are misplaced (in front of other 'more important' external links), etc.

The account itself seems to have a strong conflict of interest, both 'cals' and 'eoa' suggest a link to the organisation itself, and hence editing like this would be also a violation of our Terms of use. Moreover, this may be a group or company account. Pushing to make contact may be the only way forward for now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you bring this up at WP:COIN it will be sure to get appropriate attention. I happen to be a regular there. – Brianhe (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can contact an Arkansawyer who might be interested in helping them. In fact, I'll send them a short personal message myself. I may have contributed slightly to the problem.  I read on a list that EOA needed some help, so before reading the rest of the message I went to check out the encyclopedia, and ended up adding 2 external links myself! I'll do what I can today.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

countrysideamishfurniture.com

 * links


 * prior report
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive Oct 1


 * accounts

A highly promotional website being used as a ref, fails WP:RS. The original user adding the link was softblocked two weeks ago due to a promotional username. The more recent user to add the link shares the same name as someone holding the position "Webmaster & Technical Writer at Countryside Amish Furniture", so appears to be a continued WP:COI issue in attempting to promote links to their site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

learningbasedweb.blogspot.com

 * links


 * accounts

Inserting linkspam to multiple articles and talk pages, disguised as refs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: The report was also blanked by user:Ieda wanda. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blanked again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

gettinggeek.com
Inept and transparent scheme to blast Wikipedia with throwaway accounts after the pioneer spammer, User:Jonhmackirise, received a final warning. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * List of spammers

filmybase.com
Should be a quicky. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Kulvir97. Three accounts have been created to promote this site. One draft article has been prepped, live articles have been submitted on two occasions. Two of the accounts have attempted to add it to articles. All three accounts have been blocked. SPI report up. This site is absolutely nothing special. A cookie-cutter blog that looks like a basic content-scraping site. Not useful here. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. MER-C 11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Good timing too since the self-promoter created another account and started crafting templates and other unuseful crap. Much appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Tnemcek seems to only "contribute" spam articles
User:Tnemcek Thomas Nemcek is currently the Brand Manager for Fulton Innovation.

His edits mostly concern 2 pages: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tnemcek

These 2 pages are advertising masquerading as articles and should be speedily deleted: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECoupled (eCoupled is proprietary technology developed by Fulton Innovation) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splashpower (Splashpower was acquired by Fulton Innovation)

Also relevant is this piece of history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tnemcek

Lanchon (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

- spamming very short new articles. &mdash;Skyllfully (talk &#124; contribs) 06:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

downloadsfreemovies.blogspot.in
Appears to provide no useful content for articles what with most of the prose being written in gibberish. Site provides access to and links to what are almost certainly copyright violations. As of this note the links could be found in these versions of a few articles:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

I have removed the links. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Continued spamming . I think blacklisting may be in order. At least give it to XLinkBot. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This request was archived without remedy, so I have reposted it. started spamming it again here: . I have blocked the IP for a week. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Another addition here. I am tempted to add it myself, but I'm not that sharp with regex and I don't want to break the entire Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like another has sprung up here: downloadsfreemovies.blogspot.com. Will file new report. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

downloadsfreemovies.blogspot.com
A week or so ago I reported downloadsfreemovies.blogspot.in. A new .com off-shoot also exists, having has sprung up here. Also found it at Mitti Na Pharol Jogiya. I have removed both. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist per previous. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll need to blacklist "downloadsfreemovies.blogspot." because the TLD is specific to whoever is reading the blog (.com.au, .co.uk, .co.nz, .sg, etc are all valid and lead to the same place). I've already done this for this instance. MER-C 16:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, I did not think about that problem. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

bollypedia.in
- has gone out of their way to add multiple links to this site to various articles, often in inappropriate places like in the lede to confirm the name of a film, or at the top of a section. Seems like clear promotion to me. Here they are adding inline external links to various soundtrack titles, ostensibly to drive traffic to that site. Here are some other examples:. Based on this link, the site looks like a meaningless blog with a fancy color scheme instead of a clear editorial policy. As of this note, the link was only found in a handful of articles, and appear to mostly have been added by Morya raj. Katti Batti, Talvar (film), Jazbaa, Shaandaar, Pyaar Ka Punchnama 2, Singh Is Bliing. I'll remove the links. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Found another SPA, adding links to this site. . Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Repost - Hi all, sorry to bug. This request was archived without response, and another instance has popped up. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Video spamming (PBS)


SPA account adding hundreds of video links to PBS- and PBS-hosted videos, often in batches of several articles, adding 1 video to as many vaguely related articles as possible. Some users already voiced their concern about those additions, but a more detailed discussion never started. Looking through the account's edit history, the user seems to be adding those links to raise publicity for those videos and their producers - such additions are against WP:LINKSPAM. Most of the additions are either not directly related to the article topic, or they are "documentaries" and "video stories" of questionable encyclopedic value. Whatever the exact background, those additions show strong evidence for a conflict of interest. GermanJoe (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Added 5 more domains (some links have also been added by good faith editors), spam added by the same SPA user. There are probably still a few more media-related domains to add. GermanJoe (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cleaning up - I am trying to avoid deleting legit usages as far as possible, but if it happens feel free to revert me. GermanJoe (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted a couple of the Montana ones, but looks like you are doing well overall.  Montanabw (talk)  02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Androtransfer

 * Link


 * Spammers:

Deadlink spamming. -KH-1 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. MER-C 12:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

nazeerkhosa.com
Hi all, I've indeffed who was the chief contributor of these links and who really went crazy today with the self-promotion:. Site looks like a cookie-cutter blog. The first link I clicked on here was mostly gibberish. Of no value here. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Acemetillidie0001
persistent ongoing spamming of The account should be blocked as promo-only account. Both sites have an oddly similar layout, have apparently been recently created and are completely unusable for encyclopedic referencing. GermanJoe (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Filmymantra

 * Link:

Deadlink spamming. -KH-1 (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Spammers:

Swatisharma3193 (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC) we were Replacing Deadlinks we did not wish alter any working url so please have a look at it and then mark it as spam. And am new to wikipedia so i could not see Previous warning. All the Articles edited by me or filmymantra.com are Relevant to the Content if it is irrelevant then you can Report it as Spam. Please check all my Edits and tell me where i have Replaced a working Authoritive url with Filmymantra.com. I have Only Replaced Dead Links with Proper Source of Bollywood. And Filmymantra is one of the Most Authentic Bollywood Website.


 * It's over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#filmymantra.com The Avengers (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Editors involved with this site have been early on (May of this year) been informed of their conflict of interest and how that should be handled on Wikipedia. Now lately, editors are replacing links with these links, and while being warned on the accounts / IPs that they use at this moment, they still continue without further response (and/or switch IP/account, however, editors have been adding these links well after warnings were posted to their talkpages, giving ample time to heed the warning).  I have hence now blacklisted this link so that uninvolved editors can see whether there is merit to include these links, and convince admins to whitelist those / deblacklist the whole domain.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The user was removing reliable sources and adding their website. There is no need to whielist. We have enough of these new Bollywood websites popping out everyday. The Avengers (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

southflderm.com

 * links


 * accounts

Addition of commercial advert linkspam into multiple articles by drive-by SPA IP addresses. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)