MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2016

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

Specific YouTube videos[edit]

  • What sparked this was a recent request to restore the George Miller article, which reminded me about the problems with the Chef article. Given how long that had been going on, it wouldn't surprise me if there was someone waiting around for their account to be autoconfirmed so they can add the links again, given that people have been trying to put things about this guy on Wikipedia since 2014. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79: Yes, we can, and I will. It however needs monitoring, others may appear. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you!! That will definitely be helpful! I'm going to ping Samtar on this so they can know as well, since they monitor that article as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You pinged? That's good stuff though - hopefully that stems the flow a little -- samtar talk or stalk 08:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fatimajinnah.com[edit]

Was used as a citation at Fatima Jinnah, but I've replaced it with other citations; my system produces a malware warning. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ycdtotv.com[edit]

Attempting to source Don't Look Now (1983 TV show) with this link and it's rejecting due to the spam blacklist. This looks to be an old request from June 2010 and it does not appear to be actively spammed on the wiki anymore. -- Dane2007 talk 03:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dane2007: This obviously is not actively spammed anymore because it is blacklisted. If you need it for one source, then I would suggest to  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

zzzslots.com[edit]

spammed by

Spam after final warning. Online gaming site with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spikedaily.com[edit]

This website has been used many times to cite the box office gross of many Filipino film articles such as My Bebe Love and Imagine You and Me. However, the website is questionable as it lacks editorial oversight with many of its claims based on rumors from social media. Hollyckuhno (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thehulltruth.com / The Hull Truth Boating Forum website[edit]

(This is my first experience with a blacklist, so any newbie guidance is appreciated.)

TheHullTruth.com thehulltruth.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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

Why remove from blacklist: This site was added in 2010 log, but following the trail It's not clear to me whether this site was spamming. I am trying to cite it in a talk page that I'm hoping will lead a boating expert to find a more detailed authoritative source. Since there was no documentation of spamming provided, and this site is likely to be useful for citing in topics related to boating and boat building/repair in English speaking areas, the blacklist should be removed or properly documented. If not, can just the one page I'm trying to cite be whitelisted? [www.thehulltruth.com/boating-forum/594786-marine-batteries-terminal-size-change.html#2]Peter K. Sheerin 02:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

no Declined, it is blacklisted as one of the sites in a spamming campaign: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/Internet_Brands,  Defer to Whitelist for the specific link on this domain, thehulltruth.com/boating-forum/594786-marine-batteries-terminal-size-change.html#2, that you mentioned. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

myretrotv.com / Retro Television Network website[edit]

The following is included in the blacklist: \bmyretrotv\.com\ (http://myretrotv.com).
This is the URL for Retro TV -- a U.S. digital broadcast television network. It was hidden on the infobox and I got around the blacklist by making it www.myretrotv.com. But, of course, without the " http:// " the WP article doesn't directly link to it.
I don't understand why the website for a television network was added to the blacklist, but it is a mistake. It needs to be removed from the blacklist. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: it was blacklisted per MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2008#myretrotv.com. Here no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain (for the official link you'd best off asking for the about-page to be whitelisted). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra:Thanks for the reply but I really and truly don't understand what I just read in the spam archive. It's WP gobbledygook to me. Retro TV is a legitimate television network. Just because some jerk in the past abused Retro's website link is not reason enough to keep it on the blacklist. Anyone who goes to www.myretrotv.com can see for themselves that it's a legitimate URL. If someone were to spam WP with http://www.cbs.com/, would the URL be relegated to the blacklist ad infinitum, too? Does WP give a damn about providing facts and accuracy, or doesn't it? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a jerk (as you called it) would start to heavily spam cbs.com we would indeed have a problem. If the case would become extreme (and we had that), we would at some point consider blacklisting to mitigate (and with some sites that has happened), but there are many in between options (AbuseFilters, XLinkBot, etc.). However, this site does not have such wide use, it is not cbs.
You stated that it is a mistake, and consider that it is 'in the past' without showing evidence. Anyway. It was spammed, and I don't think that this will have wide use beyond a couple of links on their subject-page(s) (a search for previous (requested) whitelistings shows similar). Whitelisting can appropriately handle those until that situation changes. I am generally reluctant to de-list links which have not shown significant use beyond a handful of pages. Spammers do not magically disappear after X years - it pays their bills. You may be very right it stopped, but on the other hand, we do not need to be running after them for weeks if they didn't. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Spammers move on to other targets. Some spammers grow up. All of them die eventually. When a URL is established to be a legitimate link, there needs to be some reconsideration about keeping it in the blacklist. Retro TV's URL has been on the blacklist for several years now. I cannot even use an archive URL to redirect readers to the website: [https://web.archive.org/web/20160201042744/http://www.myretrotv.com/shows.html Retro TV – Shows]. The heels-dug-in way is no way to run an "encyclopedia". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyxis Solitary: see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#FishEaters_and_JZG - over 10 years of the same arguments. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra:How does that topic have any relevance to the blacklisting of a television network's website? You clearly don't take the blacklisting of a legitimate business website seriously. My bringing the continuing blacklisting of
  • http://myretrotv.com
  • http://www.myretrotv.com
  • www.myretrotv.com
  • archives of Retro TV web pages because "myretrotv.com" is included in them
to the attention of administrators is not a game for me. Is there an admin in the house? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyxis Solitary: Quoting you: 'Spammers move on to other targets. Some spammers grow up. All of them die eventually.' - That is a current case that I referred you to, where the link was blacklisted over 10 years ago, and the spammer is coming back over and over. Spammers seldomly move on to other targets, grow up (I agree, they do die, but that may also take 50 years or more). It pays their bills. On a daily basis I am blocking IPs because they continuously are hitting the blacklist, they don't magically go away. Wikipedia is a high profile target. It is for low level spam, it is for high profile companies, it is for not-for-profit organisations.
And again, those are specific links, and only a few. Something that can be handled by the whitelist. The community at large has not shown any use (there are no whitelisting requests where documentation on this site was requested to be used outside it own subject).  Defer to Whitelist for specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jeniusbola.com and related[edit]

Spammed by:

The first is maybe an Isuzu dealer (?) which has been added by the same set of IPs and account as the rest, which are all gambling spam. The Isuzu site links to the other spam sites as well. Looks like this has been going on since at least February 2015. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: The COIBot reports (see 'COIBot' in the provided LinkSummary templates) shows WAAAYY more accounts and IPs. No questions asked: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wooooah. I did not know about that. That opens up a whole new world of spam hunting, thanks! Grayfell (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: It is worth reporting links here or on WT:WPSPAM - User:COIBot will normally pick up the additions of LinkSummary templates, and give you reports for all the domains (sourcing the LinkWatcher database). It often is a wealth of information in these cases, and sometimes snowballs wider and wider. Note also that LiWa3 noticed the spamming through algorithm as well, for one of the links there is a 'COIBot-Local' template - it noticed that one link was added by IPs only. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool, these provide a lot of very useful info, thanks again. Grayfell (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

newkannada.com and dilzoom.com[edit]

  • Dilzoom: This guy, Supernova9537, caught my eye for adding dilzoom.com to an article here. At first glance it seems like he's helping to bolster information, but no, he's just spamming. The reference doesn't say anything about the content it allegedly supports. The site is your run-of-the-mill cookie-cutter blog with some film trailer content embedded. It's pure garbage. Here he slaps another dilzoom.com reference onto the end of some content about mobile carrier Jio. The reference he used was [www.dilzoom.com/2016/10/world-records-in-26-days-jio-has-left.html this], which reads like an advertisement for Jio, i.e. it should not be used as a reference. Here he swaps out a dead link for dilzoom.com, a classic dead link spam technique.
  • Newkannada: As I continued poking through his contributions, I noticed that he is largely here to link to Newkannada.com. Out of 19 total edits, there are at least eight edits that add links to Newkannada [1][2][3][4] Including four from 2014 [5][6][7][8]. So he's been doing this since at least 2014.
  • Freshkannada: Of the Supernova edits, there is at least one pointing to freshkannada.[9]

Now, as I looked through some of my records, I came across User talk:Naveenbt, who I had to warn for spamming both newkannada and freshkannada, along with studentwisdom.com. I also found this guy, Quietdhanu doing the same deadlink swap.[10] So, I think this is likely part of a coordinated effort to spam these sites, and all four should be blacklisted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirk Beetstra: Thanks Dirk! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

eltoro.com[edit]

The URL belongs to a popular technology firm and can be useful to inform about IP targeting and personalized marketing tactics. I would like to see the blacklisting removed in order to be able to cite details about their technology as it relates to the future of the marketing industry. The link spam traces back to bad apple SEM agent accounts which have since been blocked. --Komodore (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

moviesdoor.com[edit]

On 9 September 2016 I found IP 103.255.6.2 adding a useless link to moviesdoor.com in the External links section of an article. I [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/summary.py?name=Cyphoidbomb&search=moviesdoor.com&server=enwiki&max=500&ns= removed the links] from Wikipedia, but then over the next few weeks some more popped up.[11][12][13] (among others). Looks like a slow spam campaign, which we've seen before. One or two edits per day to stay under the radar. Finally with this addition I figured it was time to blacklist. Based on a random link like [http://moviesdoor.com/the-wolf-of-the-wall-street-2013-full-movie-download/ this], the site looks like it's promoting illegal downloads of films. Not helpful to us. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gocinema.in[edit]

First encountered this from Raji939, who I indeffed for spam, since he appeared to be here almost entirely to add this site to articles. It appears to be yet another faceless Indian blog. Main page is an endless wall of posts. Nothing at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=gocinema.in&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=15e0mwfzfif439wo2bxna2j9i RSN indicates approval of the site]. Their [https://www.gocinema.in/#!/About/2752638/GoCinema+Exclusive about page] is useless. At present I'm not getting any hits through the [http://wikipediatools.appspot.com/linksearch.jsp?radio=on&set=top20&link=gocinema.in cross-wiki search tool], but I can see that pages like Nakul (actor) link to this site. Something might be amiss... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to select the HTTPS checkbox (I should make this the default now). MER-C 02:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that did it. Wow, there's a bunch of hits... Thanks MER-C. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DB! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

themoviedb.org / The Movie Database website[edit]

I'm attempting to create a page for TMDb and links to themoviedb.org are apparently on Wikipedia's blacklist. I am not sure why this is, can someone look into it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisbell (talk • contribs)

Maybe, just maybe, it's from your mass addition of your site which strongly looked like the start of a spam campaign back in 2008. You also got an explanation for why adding your site is inappropriate that is still relevant. Ravensfire (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire That was 8 years ago before TMDb was a reputable and relied upon internet resource. Our customers include Canal+, Toshiba, TiVo, Western Digital, Synology, Archos, Qnap, Plex, Kodi, Letterboxd and around 50,000 more companies just to name a few. Most of these products I mentioned have Wikipedia pages that even mention TMDb.
If you don't think TMDb is a reputable resource of data I'm not sure what other proof I can provide you. Our international data coverage is second to none. We are not your run of the mill movie site.Travisbell (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Travisbell: per the large note at the top of the editing window, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so that your name and a time stamp is appended to your message. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for the heads up (the mobile site only has the warning on the initial page at the top, I can see it here on the desktop real big and noticeable on the edit pages!). It should be noted, I'm not wanting to add links to pages. I'm simply wanting to create a page for TMDb. Travisbell (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Travisbell: The blacklist doesn't prevent the creation of an article on the site. That said, you should probably read our notability guidelines for corporations and our general notability guideline before you do, because notability would have to be amply demonstrated. You should also read WP:COI because you have a conflict of interest. You are strongly discouraged from editing any subject in which you have a conflict of interest because it's very difficult for people to write objectively about topics they are involved in. Your argument that most of the products listed above mention themoviedb.org isn't terribly compelling because anyone could have added that content, including people working for or in the interest of the website, such as in this 2009 edit at Kodi (software) which was added by an IP that is suspected of being a proxy server. Or this IP that in 2012 seemed interested in Kodi, Plex and MediaPortal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for the detailed reply, it is useful and informative. It was less about the page itself I suppose and more that a reference cannot be used. I was looking at 2 examples of pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheTVDB and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterboxd) that linked to some of their own pages. I'll take a read through the docs you linked to, thanks. Travisbell (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: I'm still seeing the blacklist error come up, I think it's caused from the url={{url|https://www.themoviedb.org}} in the Infobox. Does that make sense? It's the only reference left. Are you guys able to whitelist a single URL (just a link to the homepage?)Travisbell (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Travisbell: If you add a link to the site, it's going to trip the blacklist filter. As for whether or not the main site should be removed from the blacklist, I'd have to defer to some of the regulars around here; I don't do much work here outside of the occasional addition to the blacklist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'm not sure if this changes anything but I didn't even know about this German page that was created in May 2015 until just now: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Movie_Database All I'm working on here is getting an English page made. Travisbell (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Travisbell: no Declined. Misguided request, and as an aside, creating an article on your website is pretty much the worst idea you've ever had. --Guy (Help!) 22:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Could you explain to me why adding a page to one of the biggest movie databases on the internet is a bad idea? Secondly, how it is mis-guided? As it stands right now, even if another user came along they couldn't create a page either. So you have handcuffed a perfectly legitimate service (used by literally millions of people every month) from having any presence on Wikipedia. Travisbell (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing your immense history of contributions to Wikipedia, all of which appear to centre on promoting your website, I am minded to simply block you rather than entertain your attempts at promotion. You have made your request, the answer is "no", goodbye. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I don't even know how to reply to that. I'm not sitting here as a seasoned Wikipedia editor, but I only made ~10 edits 8 (EIGHT!!) years ago and when told to stop, stopped. Not a single violation since. What's the point of moderating content if you aren't able to give someone a second chance? I haven't made a single attempt at promoting my site since 2008. Travisbell (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to tell whether a certain blacklist item is being triggered?[edit]

Given how long the current blacklist is, one wonders if there is a way to tell whether a certain link is being added - while some spammers may keep trying for decades, others might wander off. It'd be nice to be able to check each item against the log - currently it cannot be searched for entries matching a specific regex. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no way. Feature requests like this have been requested I believe. I would very much appreciate this as well. (though I don't believe that spammers wander off that regularly, it pays their bill - but still some will). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Tonic Marketing[edit]

I'm posting this as a discussion since I don't know if this page is appropriate venue for the following issue. Pure Tonic Marketing operates a collection of websites that offer ticket sales via a ticket resale affiliate program. Each website is targeted towards a specific music venue (typically amphitheaters, etc.). These sites are not the official sites for these venues, they are instead third-party sites (as Pure Tonic Marketing makes clear in the disclaimers they place on each site).

For more than a year there has been a slow-motion, yet concerted, effort to replace the official website link in the infobox in the wikipedia articles about these venues with a link to the associated Pure Tonic Marketing site. I am not sure if the spammer is associated with Pure Tonic Marketing or a SEO they hired or what, but their edit strategy is classic spammer. A new identity is created solely to update a few of the links, and then they move on to a new identity. As an example of their persistence, here are a few spam runs from last year (each of the following is a contributions link)...

...and a few more recently:

The reason I am unsure if this qualifies for inclusion in the blacklist is that each domain is not inserted on multiple pages, instead a unique Pure Tonic Marketing domain associated with the venue is inserted into each venue article. Many times, but not always, they return to reintroduce their link if it is subsequenty removed by a WP contributor who notices their spam. Here are the domains that I've extracted from the above contribution links (click "show" to see list, undoubtedly there are more...):

list of domains

—RP88 (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RP88: This is exactly the stuff we want to know about. plus Added. MER-C 12:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for handling this as an addition request and letting me know that this page is the right forum for reporting this kind of activity. —RP88 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RP88: Yes, this is the right place for the stuff that one deems bad enough to be blacklisted (above in the 'proposed additions section'). If you're less sure, WT:WPSPAM is a place where one can build a case first (and we will also blacklist directly from there if it does turn out to be egregious enough). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple fake newspaper websites[edit]

See WP:Conflict of interest/noticeboard#Mindcap - undisclosed paid editor? for details. It appears that a probable SEO company, possibly the same people involved with previous case of bangalorean.net, are creating multiple fake newspapers to promote subjects, then inserting articles on them on Wikipedia. Based on WHOIS data located by Smartse, at least two of these sites were registered to an individual or company with the same contact details. Regardless of the outcome of the COIN case or any related SPI, these sites are bogus and should never be used in Wikipedia. - Brianhe (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per developments at COIN, adding some more domains listed here. - Brianhe (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianhe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt. The COIN report has also launched an SPI. Someone may be back for more. - Brianhe (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added one more domain to your list above and to the blacklist (thenyjournal.com). Kuru (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

migrationtranslators.com.au[edit]

migrationtranslators.com.au: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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

  • Spamming by multiple single-purpose accounts, e.g.:[[14]], [[15]], [[16]], [[17]], [[18]]. Previous request was archived without action but addition of spam references is continuing. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added MER-C 04:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to whitelist a site on talkpages, even if it still has to be blacklisted for the articles?[edit]

It's the first time I've needed to explore black/whitelisting. I wanted to add to our Beachy Head article a mention of Charlotte Turner Smith's poem with that title. I googled the poem and found a site I'd not heard of before, poetryatlas.com, which, while clearly not a WP:RS, strikes me as a fascinating project and a good memory-jogger on the way to proper research. When I tried to add it to the talkpage, I got error messages which have led me here. Like I say, I'm new to this process, but it would seem useful to be able to blacklist certain sites from the article, while allowing links on the talkpage. Do we have this facility? If so, can it be extended to poetryatlas? If not, where can I request it? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbon Caryatid: No, that feature does not exist (allowing links in certain namespaces would still allow editors to add the link, and hope that editors follow that - e.g. we are under constant attack by spambots which do not care in any form on which page the link is added). On talkpages having a clickable link is merely a convenience, you can post the link with the 'http://' taken off. For mainspace, you'd have to request whitelisting. I hope this explains. (note, overhaul of the spam blacklist system has been requested for a long time, and this would then certainly be a feature that could be considered). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. That's clear. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it seems like a sensible proposal to add an option of "main namespace only" in the future -- but as you say, you can always take off the "http://" and have people copy-paste the link, so it's just a matter of convenience. I do think that spambots (or their handlers) care very much which namespace their links are being added to, as the google pagerank algorithm clearly places very low priority on talk namespace. --dab (𒁳) 09:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California locksmith sites[edit]

Multiple SPAs and IPs have been spamming Lock (security device) and related. These sites all link to each other and are presumably the same company. No encyclopedic value. Grayfell (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

worldsgreatestcritic.com[edit]

A distinctly web 1.0 site run by non-notable critic J.C. Maçek III (article just deleted). I am going through removing cites, this appears to have been spammed by Maçek over a period of years. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

traindogsonline.org[edit]

links
users

Let's collect some data on this. The first three IPs come out of traindogsonline.org, which lead to the next set of links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lowratelocksmith.com[edit]

lowratelocksmith.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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

@Mean as custard: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2016&oldid=1108704972"