MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

4everwhite.com

4everwhite.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Not sure if this is too early to report, but the owner of this website is hiring spammers on Upwork for promotional purposes. GSS 💬 10:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GSS, The COIBot report does not contain any additions, yet. Probably too early. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

csibioinfo.nus.edu.sg

csibioinfo.nus.edu.sg: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

More general URL for the already blacklisted csibioinfo.nus.edu.sg/csingsportal. After the IPs block expired today, they resumed spamming with the unblocked version of the URL. -

MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: csibioinfo.nus.edu.sg
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: (doi (does not display correctly, but works anyway)

Lets capture all of it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

animenewsnetwork.com

Use to many links and have spam behavior because put to many links at one wiki. All major anime subject wikies appear at least 10 links with this domain like Anime, Naruto, Dragon Ball. This site appear spammy and not a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sareville (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sareville: What makes you think that the links are on Wikipedia because of spam, as opposed to the source being used in good-faith by editors who may not be aware of proper sourcing? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, "For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga." There is a caveat to avoid "Fan interest" content, but otherwise, this appears to be a legit outlet for anime-related content. So it's unclear what your beef is with this source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Is because have so many links added and is considered spam. Like have more than 10 links to animenewsnetwork.com but to only one wiki have these number. And what i see links to all wiki have more than 100 links total on all major wikies with anime subjectt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sareville (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's considered a reliable source, then it's fine for inclusion unless you can demonstrate a concerted effort by a user or users to promote that site. no Declined Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: So for me because i try to edit some anime wikies and add some information, like i try to edit one wikie or two and add 2 links to my website in references, and is a reliable source, it was declined and the animenewsnetwork is possible to have so many links, but my site i try to added 2 links it not was approved my edits. And i try to make a wikie about my site and the same not was approved but animenewsnetwork have rights to have a wikie about that site on wikipedia. So how is right? animenewsnetwork have right to have own wiki and many links but to my site can not add 2 links and one wikie about that site because not was approved. And i see you need to proove a user try to promote that site and only than will be blacklisted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sareville (talk • contribs)
@
our conflict of interest guideline truly into account? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Beetstra: Yes i taken terms of use and conflict of interest guideline and i don't maked anything wrong. Just added some information which appear on my site, and put a new reference with external link to my site. And with wikie page about my site, i don't have nothing to be a confilct of interest. That site earn 200000 unique visitors/monthly only from wikipedia which is not fair.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sareville (talk • contribs)
@Sareville: 'That site earn 200000 unique visitors/monthly only from Wikipedia, which is not fair' .. maybe that site is a good resource that deserves to be used, and that is a fair recognition.
Still, 'added some information which appear on my site' is exactly what
WP:COI suggests you not to do), and you did not clearly declare your connection on your userpage, which is what m:Terms of use as you to do. Be very careful how you proceed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

anime.me.uk

Ah, the plot thickens ..

This is not your first account, and with the warnings and blocks received with those accounts you did not get the message that you are here in blatant violation of the terms of use of this website. By now, due to your persistence, your website has been already blacklisted on one local wiki, and that is why you now want a competitor website, which was not spammed/abused/added in violation of the terms of use, but used genuinely instead.

Original request: Rejected, bad faith request. And I repeat my warning, be very careful how you proceed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this needs to go to meta if any further spamming occurs. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: I'm glad you sussed this out. My first instinct was that this guy had an irrational beef with one website, which suggested that he tried to spam something and was rejected in the past. Glad you endeavored to look deeper than I did! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, thanks! This looked like it was more than the one edit they made, COIBot and LiWa3 to the rescue! Dirk Beetstra T C 18:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just searched on Google my website and appear my website on Google search on this link on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#anime.me.uk . Why my website is here, is my first time on wikipedia, so i am very sure i not ever post my website on wikipedia pages. This website is pretty new, and sometime i search on google to see if appear on other websites like backlink. I wait a reply, thanks, David Welles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWelles27 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DavidWelles27, can you please tell us which search term you used to find this discussion? Dirk Beetstra T C 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Handled on meta, sockfarm blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump.News

Per [1], mirror of content at blacklisted naturalnews\.com set up to bypass siteban by Facebook. That's actually not a surprise: Mike Adams is a long-time scammer and Natural News was just his latest grift. Guy (help!) 21:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fake nobility sites

These sites are all run by the same person, who styles himself a Prince and uses them to support that claim. |They are all very web 1.0 and run on massively-shared servers. Some have eben added by throwaway

WP:SPAs e.g. Prof. Courcival (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), some by London IPs (the guy lives in London apparently) and some are doubtless added in good faith because they are designed to look plausible. There are sockpuppets e.g. William.F.Richards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too. We have known about this since at least 2009, see Talk:Almanach de Gotha. I think we should blacklist these fake sites now. Guy (help!) 12:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

2005, looking at my records–I hadn't realized he was still around. By all means. Choess (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blacklist, @Choess:, can the 2005 record be linked for posterity? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this goes all the way back to 1999 Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
86.131.15.13 (talk · contribs) is the earliest example I've found so far. This got batted around on Usenet back when that was still a thing. Choess (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thereligionofpeace.com

Anti-Muslim hate site routinely added by POV-pushers (see current

WP:AN). Clearly useless and inappropriate on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 09:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@JzG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an anti-muslims site, it shows terrorist attacks done and attackers using the word "allah", "in the name of allah", if you can allow "pro-muslim" content, why can't you allow "anti-muslim" content? quoting verses from quran isn't anti-muslim. if a verse says to kill non believers, it should be quoted, not censored.

banning this site is equivalent to banning sites which track pro-rightwing nazi attacks! Just a fact checker (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

autodevot.com

The website is repeatedly cited in several automotive and car-related articles by this user, which clearly is an author/writer in the website. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generalsagar blanked this report, clearly not willing to discuss the issue here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:REFSPAM with conflict of interest with previous warnings unheeded. This is just a personal blog. Except for 1 edit, the only user up to about 2 days ago was Generalsager. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

change.org redirects

It looks that we missed:

  • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: chn.ge

Needs to go. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 07:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

eduvision

The site provides information regarding Pakistani universities and courses offered in these. Its like an encyclopedia of higher education in pakistan. A number of pages on Wikipedia list the courses and universities information which is outdated. If the link to this site is provided then users can get edit and put the latest lists of Wikipedia by checking the lists from eduvision. One such example is the data at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmacy_schools_in_Pakistan now the updated list is available at [1] I hope you will whitelist the website so that Wikipedia users and students in paksitan get the latest updated information.

References

  1. ^ www.eduvision.edu.pk/institutions-offering-pharmacy-with-field-medical-sciences-at-bachelor-level-in-pakistan-page-1
no Declined, again, we rarely remove or whitelist based on opinions of site owners. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sci-hub.tw/alexandra

Posted in error. Whitelist request. Guy (help!) 14:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is Alexandra Elbakyan's official autobiography. Erkin Alp Güney 05:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Erkinalp9035: no Declined, already blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erkinalp9035, did you mean this as a whitelist request? Guy (help!) 10:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, copied to whitelist requests by myself. Erkin Alp Güney 11:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
erkinalp9035 np. Closing this then. Guy (help!) 14:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

redd.it

A Reddit URL shortener. We already ban the equivalent for youtube (youtu.be) so this should be a no-brainer... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See for example that it is actually being used this RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: we tend to be more lenient with dedicated redirects (redd.it for reddit.com), only blacklisting them if there are serious concerns. youtu.be was blacklisted due to the many blacklisted / revertlisted youtube.com links as well as that spambots were massively abusing it. Chng.it is going to see the same faith in a couple of minutes. I am not aware of restrictions on reddit.com, do we have those, or that the redirects are being used to circumvent specific links on reddit. (personally: I do think that all links should be expanded so you know where you go, avoid shock effects etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: The entry at RSP says "Reddit is a social news and discussion website. Reddit contains mostly user-generated content, and is considered both self-published and generally unreliable. Interview responses written by verified interviewees on the r/IAmA subreddit are primary sources, and editors disagree on their reliability. The policy on the use of sources about themselves applies." So in essence whether it's via the dedicated redirect or not most content on reddit is not appropriate and should probably be used only via whitelist. Alternatively we should add "https://www.reddit.com/" to the blacklist and put "https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/" on the whitelist (it that works?) if we want to be lenient. In any case, the redirect does not keep the information about which subreddit the linked discussion is (for example, the full url of the one I show as an example above is "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wrimw/how_were_asians_and_indians_treated_during_times/"; while the shortened variant only has the identifier "2wrimw")... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, hmm .. then we first have to clean up the hundreds of sources that use redd.it, and likely thousands that use reddit.com, otherwise blacklisting will cause disruption. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Link search reveals (for the http:// page):
  • 5 uses in article space for www.reddit.com: [2] (one is to a fansite, for eg.)
  • 2 uses in article space for reddit.com: [3] one is a link to conversation about a tweet (the tweet should be linked instead), the other is as seemingly as a link to an official page for smthg reddit-related.
  • Plenty of silly and inappropriate uses of reddit in talk pages, eg. this
Now then looking at the https:// results yields a lot more; (eg. [4] [5]); but much of these are, I guess, inappropriate, for example this, or not necessary (for example, links to full-text transcripts of a web series which begin as a subreddit).
Some links are also reports on reddit of information posted in other (reliable, I hope?) sources, eg. [6] used as a source at the articles of both relevant footballers.
A lot of links are seemingly valid uses of r/IAmA as described above. I nevertheless remain quite confident that we shouldn't be encouraging further invalid uses as those I show above. Where's the best place to clean this backlog?
WP:ELN
seems like the natural place, but I am not sure it is quite as well frequented as some other noticeboards...
Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: I’ll start with this to curb the influx. When it is cleaned up we’ll need to reassess the blacklisting. plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.xyz TLD

lyricbird.xyz

Yet another lyrics site. Guy (help!) 10:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, Thanks Dirk. I wonder if the entire .xyz TLD should be blocked, with whitelisted exceptions. All but two I have found to date have been spam, cybersquatted, malware or hopeless. Guy (help!) 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I started to wonder the same. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen more lyrics sites from this TLD plus other just flat-out garbage sites. I'm not sure I've seen any good sources from this TLD, in part because it's still fairly new. I would certainly support this. Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parroting Ravensfire, I've seen lots of these XYZ sites and they're mostly crap. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

modiyojna.xyz

Looks like the spammers are operating slowly. Also sometimes using subdomains like "m.modiyojna.xyz", "d.modiyojna.xyz, "r.modiyojna.xyz". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

computerscience0.xyz

Two accounts have spammed this semi-recently, both look fishy. John67680612 and Car67680612 Interesting numbers... Blocked both. Also saw this Indian IP. Haven't bothered doing anything with them, since they'll probably jump IPs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the whole .xyz TLD

Yes, an entire TLD. Why? Because every single instance I have seen, with the sole exception of two domains owned by Alphabet, has been spam. Can we add this to the revert list please? Guy (help!) 18:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I have dumped some db-queries on the talkpage of the COIBot report: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/xyz (if I have time, I will reformat it into LinkSummary templates, feel free to beat me to that). For en.wikipedia this concerns up till now 1774 different domains over 7350 independent links in 4468 diffs. Visually, many are useless and spam, but I am tempted to blacklist the domain and handle it, like we do with .guru, on a case-by-case basis on the whitelist. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, I think that would be a sound approach. I considered a filter, but people seem to ignore those with alacrity and there's no whitelist, so the blacklist is actually rather more transparent. Guy (help!) 08:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the db-dump in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/xyz#en_only to use LinkSummaries. You'll have to edit the sections as they have too many templates.

@

Ravensfire, JzG, and Cyphoidbomb: for me, most of it looks crap (look at the numbers that have 'rx' (prescriptions), 'music', 'download', 'movie' mentioned in them). I would have to look into more detail, but I would guess that <1% is properly needed (including the abc.xyz that Guy mentioned). My suggestion: if you all agree we pull the trigger, and immediately whitelist the couple that we identify as proper. Further requests go the the WL and are treated as we do for .guru and some of the redirect TLDs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Beetstra, sounds good to me. Guy (help!) 09:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm strongly in support of this. I've seen one xyz domain that was good (abc.xyz) and nearly one a day that's just a crappy site someone is trying to spam here. Ravensfire (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
Ravensfire: that sounds enough, lets regulate this through the whitelist. If that gets too much, we can always revisit. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Remove free basics from black list please

Not a blacklist issue. You need
IP block exemption. Guy (help!) 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can't edit with free basics, my IP is blocked. I caj edit bangla wikipedia with it but not english wikipedia. So please give me IP block exemption or remove free basics from black list. Thanks Emdad Tafsir (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emdad Tafsir: you were trying to add www.0.freebasics.com/https/www.wikipedia.org/, you should add only https::/www.wikipedia.org/. Don’t use freebasics to edit Wikipedia. —Dirk Beetstra T C 09:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I can't? I can edit bangla wikipedia with it. Free basics is totally free of charge in Bangladesh here. So without buying MB I can edit Bangla wiki, but I can't edit English or other wikies. Please give me IP block exemption so that I can contribute in English and other wikies. Thanks Emdad Tafsir (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emdad Tafsir, IP block exemption is something else, this is about adding the external links. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Bangla wiki, I also unable to edit with free basics. I discussed the matter that I can't edit with Free Basic. They gave me IP Block exemption, now I have no trouble to edit with free basics. I also told them about English wiki, they advised me to discuss with an English wiki admin.

I want to edit with freebasics please take necessary steps to give me the chance of contributing in wikipedia. Thanks Emdad Tafsir (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

beingcelebrity.com

Celebrity scraper site that's been added to a few articles recently. Ravensfire (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NewsBytes

Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia NewsBytes is one of the most popular news websites(SimilarWeb.com) in India, which is read by more than 15 million unique users every month. Using the right mix of technology and editors, NewsBytes provides the context behind every topic. Further, the company publishes exclusive interviews with sportsperson and celebrities, which might be useful to edit articles on Wikipedia.

Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore I suppose it was included in the spam list, because one IP was spamming the reference list of Wiki articles. This was one of the amateur SEO agencies trying to game the system. This happened a couple of years back. Being a regular reader of NewsBytes, I know how both their coverage and traffic havee increased and I don’t think this blacklisting is required now. This was always a stupid mistake on their part rather than an abuse.

Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped Given the volume of users the company has achieved, it seems they would have learnt that spamming or gaming Wiki is impossible. This is why I think they won’t abuse it again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaron230 (talk • contribs)

 Not done This was spammed heavily by multiple IPs, and we have plenty of other better sources available. Trusted/regular editors may request whitelisting if necessary. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedogram

Link
Spammers

Please blacklist. -

KH-1 (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
KH-1
: you mist
Feedogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two domains

At least two similarly-named users have attempted to spam the blogspot site, Maheshdarji955 and Nikunjdarji321. Both have been indeffed. At some point we're going to have to have a serious discussion about blacklisting blogspot.com, since this site seems to be the preferred choice for spammers to create quick subdomains. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nuwaysmd.com

Link
IPs

Please blacklist. -

KH-1 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

bestforlives.com

Per COIBot report, spammed by IPs and SPAs. Will add shortly.

talk) 15:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

aramisrugby.co.uk

Various BT IPs over two years despite warnings to those IPs. Being added to various articles (Scrum machine, Worcester Warriors, Guinness World Records etc. Woody (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Woody: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wiki-biography.com

So far I've only seen one user add this site, but I can't tell yet if it's spam or good-faith editing with a poor source. I'd like to check the COIBot before this is added to the list. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sharebuyers.co.uk

This was being used to ref spam by the users below and it isn't an RS so probably best to blacklist to prevent further abuse.

SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newshelp

Link
Spammers

+ Others. Please blacklist.-

KH-1 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
KH-1: And many more IPs. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Verywell, 2

WP:RSN. In the ensuing thread, it was claimed that the Verywell sites had been spammed. There is no evidence of this. Two LinkReports exists: verywell.com (which now redirects to verywellhealth.com) and verywellmind.com. However, these don't actually show spamming. The verywellmind.com report does show repeated editing from a very wide IP range (197.156.*.*), but if you look closely, this is actually a single user from Ethiopia who stubbornly attempted to insert a link into Video game addiction
, *after* the site was blacklisted.

Verywell was banned following this thread, which cited a small sockpuppet case. However, this involved no spamming. Only a copyvio.

I believe that the Verywell sites were unjustly blacklisted and I propose their removal. There is no consensus whether the sites are reliable (I believe they are), but that issue is unrelated to this banlist, which is primarily to prevent spamming, for which there is no evidence. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manifestation, noting, as I did in the RS thread, that the excuse of the single Ethiopian is invalid, as the same link was added to the same page through an open proxy in France, and there are 3 instances weeks apart. I do not think that the stubbornness there is solely related to a person that was unable to add that link, I believe that there is more there behind those attempted edits.
I still believe it was justly banned, it was abused by multiple editors in a case relating to copyvio material. It was a just way of stopping that abuse. Reliability is not a reason to blacklist, but I do believe that there is no value in unblacklisting something that is abused unless there is widespread use for a site, where widespread use is not there if it is largely unreliable, or unsuitable as a source (and since this is health-related,
WP:MEDRS
should be satisfied that this is a good source).
I am not entertaining requests that state that the site was unjustly banned (that may have been a situation of the moment, of which you cannot even see all the evidence, and where some information is not known: was the editor attempting to spam by copying their information and linking to it (i.e. spamming; note that the pages ranked in the top 10 medical sites less than a year after launch), or was it an uninvolved editor who desperately tried to incorporate the data).
I would entertain a delisting if one can show that there is widespread use of a site, and there is not widespread spamming. I can concur with the latter part of your evaluation (though I haven't gone through all the (attempted) edits to get a wider view), the
WP:MEDRS does not help. I am still in favour of just whitelisting the (likely very few) cases where reliability and use can be shown. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
"it was abused by multiple editors in a case relating to copyvio material"
That was actually a college student from Sri Lanka who copy-pasted text into
OVH in a failed attempt to bypass the blacklist. They tried repeatedly to insert this article to Video game addiction, a subject he/she apparently felt very strong about. In the verywellmind.com LinkReport, the first ten IPs that made edit #93 to #109 are as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. As you can deduce from the edits, the dynamic IPs are from Ethiopia, and they have not spammed. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I keep learning new things about Wikipedia. I just found out that there are actually *four* LinkReports, not two. This site just overwhelms me. :-(
The above LinkReports show no evidence of spamming. - Manifestation (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS? Guy (help!) 20:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Manifestation, I already stated that there maybe was not real spamming. However, there was pushing with copyvio, and using the spam blacklist to mitigate that is very well within the scope, especially if a site is of marginal reliability (it could even be if the site is very reliable, we do blacklist specific links to reliable material if there is someone pushing it). Do we now really want to de-blacklist because 'maybe it was not spamming', while knowing that it is of marginal reliability. My suggestion remains: it is better to whitelist specific links where there is consensus that it is needed and reliable.
(COIBot will regenerate reports when requested, posting here inside {{
LinkSummary}}-templates is one of the ways of requesting the bot to do that). Dirk Beetstra T C 06:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:MEDPOP warns against them, but also states that if they are of a high quality, they could be used. See also the comments
on the RS noticeboard.
@Beetstra: Those copyvios were done in late 2018 by three accounts and one IP from Sri Lanka, see the sockpuppet case. Copy-paste jobs are not a good reason to banlist a site.
Blacklisting all popular press sites and whitelisting specific links to them is bureaucratic, time-consuming, and un-Wikipedian. I wouldn't be for it. - Manifestation (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDPOP) should be higher, as blacklisting these sites causes a substantial amount of collateral damage by making it more difficult for editors to use these sources correctly. Considering that verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com have already been blacklisted for over a year, I support Manifestation's proposal to remove them from the spam blacklist. If the spamming recurs, we can always revert the edits and blacklist the domains again. — Newslinger talk 17:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

"If the spamming recurs, we can always revert the edits and blacklist the domains again."
While I have not seen evidence of spamming, I agree that if there will be, the domains must go back on the list. I also concur with the rest of your comment. Also, do you happen to know if COIBot will continue to update the LinkReports, even after the domains are no longer on the banlist? Because if COIBot keeps updating them, I can watchlist the LinkReports and keep an eye on them. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And? Is Verywell going to be removed? - Manifestation (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging
WP:MEDRS", which is false. This has since been changed to "persistent abuse", which is also false. Considering the evidence I have produced in support of Verywell, what is your current opinion? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Manifestation: You could have pinged me as well. I stand with my last points. Yes, maybe it was not spamming (smaller maybe it was). However, by your own point, it is of 'marginal reliability' and I stand then with the 'maybe it was not spamming, maybe it was': I am of the opinion that we should see this at the whitelist first. If there is really a significant use we can revisit this, but with one granted whitelist and one declined whitelist request in 2 years I do not think that we have a volume of links that the whitelist cannot handle (and then, I have to see whether we really think that this is suitable for use in many of the cases where we do see requests). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: I prefer removal from the blacklist entirely because there was no spamming or abuse.
@JzG: What is your opinion? Remove or not remove?
@Newslinger: What do you think? And you haven't replied to my comment about the LinkReports yet (see above). Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Manifestation: You can dogmatically repeat: ‘there was no spamming’, it is not the only concern regarding this site. I stand with the point: maybe there wasn’t any spamming, maybe there was. I know that you want it off this list, but ‘maybe spammed’ x ‘marginally reliable’ x ‘can easily be handled with whitelisting to curb both the spamming and the misuse of this marginally reliable site’ lands me at a preference to see how much we really need vs. how much would have to be removed because it was misused first. The few whitelist requests we saw does not give that image clearly yet. —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I am not even convinced that the only use that we currently have of this site is for that subject the right use: if a ‘very well’ site has to tell me why bodies were buried the way they were buried then I doubt that they are a subject expert on it and I doubt that no subject experts have published the same. —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removing a website from the spam blacklist can be difficult because, in practice, the burden of proof for showing that the website no longer poses a spam risk is on the editors who support removal. The most straightforward way to show that a site should be unblacklisted is through a pattern of successful whitelist requests, but there is a good chance that editors (particularly inexperienced ones) who attempt to cite Verywell will simply give up instead of requesting whitelisting.

Can we add another intermediate step ("probation") to the unblacklisting process for sources like Verywell that appear to be harmless, but have not yet received enough whitelisting requests? My suggestion is to implement a new

"log") that tracks the addition of external links to all websites that are on probation. Websites that are placed on probation are removed from the blacklist, and the administrator who approves the probation is tasked with monitoring the edit filter log. If spamming occurs during the probationary period, the site is restored to the blacklist. If there is no spamming up to the end of the probationary period, then the website is removed from the edit filter.

Does this sound like a reasonable suggestion? — Newslinger talk 11:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Newslinger hose edit filters tend to be quite heavy. Moreover they don’t do much more than a COIBot report. Added to that, because we know it is a marginally reliable source, it may require quite some work in cleaning up. 2 handled whitelist requests in 2 years is nothing, if that is the load I do not see much reason to give us work by removing it. —Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manifestation I don't know why you're pinging me, I'm not an admin, I have no power here and I've never closed anything here. However since you asked my opinion, I agree with Beetstra. Praxidicae (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: You agree with him?? Even though he's obviously lying?
I'm at the end of my rope here. Seriously, I'm at my limit. I've been trying to get through to you guys for weeks now, both here and at
WP:RSN. But you either don't listen to me, or you don't care. Newslinger, thanks for trying to be a voice of reason here, but there are so little whitelist requests because many people don't know how to file one, don't care enough, our assume that something must be wrong with Verywell due to it being on the blacklist, even though there isn't anything wrong with Verywell. But people believe what they want to believe I guess. - Manifestation (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
You asked for my opinion, I gave it. You don't get to belittle it. Don't ping me here again. Praxidicae (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further,
pretty hefty charge, I expect your next edit will be providing diffs. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Manifestation, I see that as a personal attack. Withdraw that now. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've let this sit (for over a month), and I find that over time my view has shifted towards keeping this on the blacklist. The editor who requested de-listing has disagreed strongly with the decision to put it on the blacklist and asserted that it's at least potentially reliable. As a compromise, the admins offered to whitelist it on any (reasonable) article where it was wanted. It strikes me now as very odd that no specific article and no specific use has been mentioned. The focus has been wholly on getting it off the blacklist, rather than on improving any article. It feels, in fact – although this may not be the case at all, I'm just saying what it feels like to me – exactly like what I'd expect from someone who was being paid to get the website removed from the blacklist. Taken as a whole, these multiple conversations do not feel like an editor who is trying to improve an article and who found that the blacklist was getting in the way of that goal. It feels like the goal itself is what's on the blacklist. (I wonder if Wikipedia's blacklists are being copied by some anti-spam services, so that being blacklisted here has unintentional external consequences for the website.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, external use of the Wikipedia blacklist would be .. (finding appropriate understatement) .. rather stupid. We blacklist stuff for many other reasons than being plainly viagra/porn/etc. spam (e.g. we blacklist to avoid people from using blatantly unreliable sources, redirect sites, etc.). Wikipedia:General_disclaimer applies as well.
All I am asking for are some reasonable examples of proper use (which makes more sense when running them through the whitelist). I am rather convinced that if we see 5-10 requests which are all reasonable and result in whitelisting that our opinion here would quickly change (and I have reverted a blacklisting once because of a flood of proper whitelisting requests). Why would I go to this bureaucracy, ánd take the risk (we do see genuine COI accounts asking delisting of (sometimes valuable) websites ask for delisting because they can't continue spamming) if a site turns out to be of no use at all? Dirk Beetstra T C 09:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

legitimatehacks.com

Could do with going on the watchlist please. Guy (help!) 11:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I wouldn't see any legitimate use of this on Wikipedia (unless it becomes notable in itself, and we solve that differently then). plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

vitamiinz.com

Spam from multiple IPs: [7] [8] [9] [10] + additional shown on the COIbot summary.

Website content is a copyright violation of American Family Fitness. No conceivable good use of this domain could appear, as far as I can see. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 11:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

historypak

Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia historypak is one of the popular website which provide detail on History Heros including mughal empires. On this website posts updates on daily basis and consider to be authenticated source of information. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped may be due to some reasons the website is added into the blacklist and now its working file

WP:RS, so no point in removing from blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

ShareBuyers

Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia

This website posts very timely news on financial markets (often sourced directly from the company itself on the morning of announcements) and is a resource to help people learn about investing. A number of references were made to the website which were either a) kept in some form or b) modified (with a change to the URL). This shows how useful the information on the website is.

Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped

The alleged abuse was an innocent mistake. Contributors to the website thought it was OK to update Wikipedia pages with relevant, timely content on a page if suitable (and much of it remains in some form). Some of the updates were; a reference to a major acquisition by a fashion company (referenced on the page of the company), news of the biggest decline in the UK economy in history (referenced on a page about the UK economy and performance), a change in portfolio owner and investment strategy of an investment trust (reference on the page of the investment trust which now only has one line of information on it) and a change in strategy by a food retailer (on the page of the retailer).

But the main concern is now the spam page on Wikipedia is now being returned by Google when searching for this domain (along with gpedia). A contributor (s) created a number of accounts because didn't remember p/w's and didn't use an e-mail to register (as Wikipeda doesn't require this - so thought it was OK to create different accounts if need be). Now there is some more understanding. No contributor to this website will post to Wikipedia in future. This will not happen again. The proposal is to remove the listing on the Wikipedia spam page, if you see what you deem to be suspicious activity in future, then add it back. Further details on this misunderstanding can be found on the user talk page of 'Beetstra'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JXChurchi (talk • contribs)

Google does not index our blacklist, so what is the point of removing it? Praxidicae (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And just two days ago, JenZRogers attempted to spam it. Wrt your first statement "often sourced directly from the company itself" proves further there is no purpose in whitelisting this website. Praxidicae (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done The recent spamming issues are the primary consideration, but I'm also unmoved by the alleged utility of the site, regurgitated press releases are not an acceptable reliable source independent of the article subject or content being sourced. Nick (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edu-net.nl

Contained onlined scientific books cited at Perilla oil, Surinam cockroach, Eublaberus distanti. Has now been usurped by a Dutch porn site. I fixed (unfit/archived) the three refs. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: maybe also used then on other wikis, which means it is better to block it on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: I found just one on viwiki, which I fixed there. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlanM1, and there should be on on ko: https://ko.wikipedia.org/?diff=18793157 --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Thanks. Fixed the kowiki ref and added at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#edu-net.nl, right? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: exactly. Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jobresourcepoint.com / lyricsovera2z.com

Recurring blog spam. Several warnings and two previous blocks have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

linktr.ee

Link shortener and landing page generator used to bypass the spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk 01:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 01:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger:  Defer to Global blacklist, ALL redirect sites go on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Beetstra, I wasn't aware of that. Let me file a report there. — Newslinger talk 05:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Should the entry be removed from the local blacklist now that it's listed in the global blacklist?​ — Newslinger talk 05:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger, You may just as well, unlikely that we remove this from the global list with the presented evidence. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed — Newslinger talk 06:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

billied.com

A hijacked site (the only content appears to be pornography) added as vandalism, for eg. [11] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (help!) 16:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

philatlas.com

Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines § PhilAtlas. This is a very low quality source which rips off higher quality sources. I'm requesting this as many editors may not know how bad it is and will continue adding it; now is a good time to nip this potential problem in the bud. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

murderpedia.org

There is consensus to blacklist this domain at

WP:BLPSPS policy. — Newslinger talk 04:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 04:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ekumkum

Link
Spammers

+ probably others. Please blacklist.-

KH-1 (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 04:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

biofamous.com

Surreptitiously added as refs (and sometimes ELs) to multiple articles. Went unnoticed for quite sometime. Gotitbro (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, we are extremely sorry for our worker Panthirabin1 who added link to the biographies knowingly or unknowingly. Our site has its own reputation and future capabilities, we would never wish to be blacklisted from this popular website. We apologize for our worker Rabin Panthi who made this mistake by adding links to the biographies. However, I want to make sure that, our site is the first in Nepal to write biographies through interviews of popular celebrities. And all the biographies here in Wikipedia has been sourced from our site. You can even check the date of our posts and date when their wikipedia has been established. However, we will never allow our employee ever to put the links to Wikipedia.

Removing our site from wikipedia is like making us orphan and homeless because the content of our site is biography of famous Celebrities of Nepal. We are growing in our business and in the future it will also Wikipedians to add the content. Also, I know that links from Wikipedia are nofollow and these donot help in google ranking. However, if you block us, we will loose our reputation that we have among Nepali Audience. So please sir, I kindly request you not to include our site in blocked list. Thank You (Biofamous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.51.88.150 (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
Wikipedia is not for promotion. Please promote your website elsewhere. — Newslinger talk 04:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

livesportsstreamforyou.blogspot.com

Extensive spam by multiple accounts (likely spambots) over a long period of time. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PhilAtlas

Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore As a long-time contributor of several Philippine administrative division articles, lists, and templates, there is no credible evidence that warrants this site to be included in the spam blacklist. In fact, the discussion in the related talk page does not show the full story of what had transpired leading to its blacklisting. It was User:Exec8 who mass-uploaded to Wikidata the elevation data sourced from PhilAtlas. He also added the relevant URL under External links of city/town articles. As an active contributor to Philippine administrative division articles, I saw that these elevations were added to the city and town articles infoboxes, but there were no citations. As the elevation data inside infoboxes had no citations, I created a template to be used in adding the citations. As I was adding these citations in batch using AutoWikiBrowser, it caught the attention of User:P199, who notified me raising concerns about the reliability of the website. I responded saying I was only adding the missing citations for elevation, since it was User:Exec8 who added the elevation data to Wikidata, as well as add the related external links in each pertinent article. User:P199 started a discussion in Wikiproject Tambayan Philippines. As discussion in the thread continued unfavorably for PhilAtlas, User:Psiĥedelisto added his comment stating it should be added in the spam blacklist without providing any concrete evidence. Upon checking on his report in this page, the administrator accepted the request in a matter of hours, placing the website under the spam blacklist. I fail to see any compelling reason why the site is blacklisted. The discussion had not provided any compelling evidence that it is an unreliable source. The website has useful information on Philippine cities and towns that could not be easily found on the web, like flight distances between cities, and city/town elevations. For the past several days, I have done some fact-checking of several content, like population, area, geocoordinates, and even elevation, in many random pages of the website and verified that many, if not most, were accurate or correct when verifying with the Philippine Statistics Authority (population, area) and Google Maps (geocoordinates, elevation, distances). I fail to see any concrete evidence that this is an unreliable source as fact-checking the claims in that website returns very accurate or correct results, and its inclusion under External links in Wikipedia will be of more help than harm.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:SPS. All it does is rip off other actually reliable sources which we should be using instead; this opinion is basically unanimous among people at that thread. The reason my request was accepted so fast was the consensus at that thread, which I linked to when I made my request. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 05:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Sanglahi86, I indeed read through the discussion that was linked, and I read there a strong preference to completely excluding this source in favour of original data. I will leave it to another admin to re-evaluate this. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in agreement that everything in that site is a rip off. As I have previously mentioned, this appears to be the only site that provides information on elevation and distances between Philippine cities and towns. Verifying these data using external measuring tools like those in Google Maps yields accurate results. My understanding is that not all self-published sources are automatically deemed unreliable. The discussion did not include rigorous fact-checking. Perhaps this site needs a second and more thorough evaluation.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sanglahi86, "... it just echoes other primary or secondary sources that are being used already anyway .." (from [[12]]), and ".. under Sources, it says: Map utilizes OpenStreetMap data available under the Open Data Commons Open Database License .." ... it is a regurgitation site, and there are examples of incorrect data there. That seems to me clear indication and consensus that this should not be used, but the original sources instead.
Maybe not all is a rip off (just most) - those links can be whitelisted:  Defer to Whitelist. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hindisuvidha.com

Recurring blog spam by dynamic IPs, previous warnings have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GermanJoe (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

airlinesreservationsonline.com

Ram.sharma9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
103.198.173.173 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
103.248.94.78 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
103.70.82.188 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Garbage link added by multiple IPs and a user account. plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld spam

Spam links that added over the years to Seinfeld related articles. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC) plus Added to blacklist. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

timebulletin.com

Time Bulletin is an authentic news website with a lot of readerships. Having said that there is also no particular reason why I think it must be on a blacklist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phulkarpareesh‎ (talk • contribs)

@Phulkarpareesh: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. Lets evaluate some specific cases to see how and where this is useful before we would consider this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra this site along with the others they requested are blatantly fake sites, just in case you or anyone else actually consider the WL request. They're used by blackhat SEO firms to publish paid for articles (not press releases) as if journalists wrote them. Praxidicae (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, yep, I noticed. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2020&oldid=1114966894"