MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2017

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

edmdesigns.com[edit]

This has been repeatedly added by IPs and registered accounts (with no other edits) to Steampunk; we can probably handle it just by constantly reverting, but it's pretty boring. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: no Declined for now. I see an IP was adding it first, then an account that is now indeffed. Maybe that gave the message. Please report back if a next IP or account is starting, they are on the edge of the cliff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Mir[edit]

Long term pushing. Waiting for report to see, but I am on the edge to pull the trigger. Blocks have been handed out (one IP still blocked), but the fight to include continues. —Dirk Beetstra T C 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: And back in .. no need to discuss. See no need elsewhere, so plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

herbapproach.com[edit]

No encyclopedic value; being actively spammed by apparent socks Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- more spamming accounts Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have reverted some still existing links earlier, then also CSD tagging Category:Thc Distillate (appears to be a copy of Draft:THC Distillate by the same author and previously also contained links to this site). I'm not sure that I used the proper CSD tag, feel free to alter (I'm not sure if obvious advert can be used there). —PaleoNeonate – 23:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm adding: User:Alicetrann's user page also appears to be another copy (I left the existing links there for now). —PaleoNeonate – 01:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very recently added this too. —PaleoNeonate – 23:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mavcure.com[edit]

Was spammed into several articles today by IP editors, and was spammed going back to 2014 as noted at User_talk:206.113.192.12#September_2014. This website has no value for supporting encyclopedic content. basta. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

iitravel.org[edit]

iitravel.org: 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

  • iitravel.org website was added to the media-wiki blacklist Kindly ask you to remove site from "media-wiki blacklist”. Please contact me again if I can help in any way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.185.171 (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2017
no Declined, no clear reason for removal given. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Url accidentally triggered protection filter[edit]

personalstructures.org: 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

I have received a notification that the following link has triggered a protection filter: personalstructures.org. The url itself however, is not listed on the media-wiki blacklist, although there are variations that contain the words personal and structures (e.g. \bshelterstructures\.com\b; \bpersonal-solicitors\.co\.uk\b). This is the site for an international art project initiated in 2002 by the artist Rene Rietmeyer. Kindly whitelist the link/root domain name.
Chihenc (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chihenc:It's not listed here because the domain is on the global blacklist. You'll need to ask there why it's blacklisted. I would suggest starting with a search of their archives to understand why it's been listed and go from there. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist is the page where you'll need to ask. Seriously though, search through the archives first to understand why it's listed there. Sites aren't put on the global blacklist on a whim. Ravensfire (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chihenc: It was spammed, blacklisted locally on nl.wikipedia, and on meta. no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. You'll have to give place where you want to use the link, which link, and why Wikipedia would be improved by having the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Tonic Marketing (again)[edit]

Pure Tonic Marketing (the subject of a previous report, additions logged here) operates a collection of websites that offer ticket sales via a ticket resale affiliate program. These sites are not the official sites for the music venues, they are instead third-party sites (as Pure Tonic Marketing makes clear in the disclaimers they place on each site). For several years they’ve had 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. The domains above are some new Pure Tonic Marketing sites (added by AwesomeMusic, etc.). —RP88 (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added MER-C 11:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viacom/Spectrum dispute corporate PR sites[edit]

These two sites deal with the differing sides of a retransmission consent dispute for cable channels between Viacom (which owns the channels) and Spectrum (which airs them) that's getting ugly fast, where I've seen the former 'Keep Viacom' site added to several pages by 'network fans' who are annoyed that Viacom will pull their networks (especially children's networks) off these cable systems later tonight if a new carriage deal isn't reached and WP:NPOV warnings have been useless. The other doesn't really have the 'posting in many articles' issues, but I don't want to favor either site and neither site meets WP:RS as spinning their side of the story without neutrality (and shockingly, I've seen some news sites and blogs take the Viacom site as the absolute truth). Nate • (chatter) 09:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

solutioninn.com[edit]

solutioninn.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

119.30.35.85 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
123.108.244.229 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
182.180.170.215 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Joeperkins1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Stevelampard444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

A non-WP:RS website that has been repeatedly and regularly spammed for at least four years (the oldest tagged account was tagged in October 2013). The users/IPs above are the one who added refspam today plus four other IPs/users that had been properly tagged, but there have with all probability been many others too... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

songsbling.info[edit]

Typical Indian film song spam, multiple IP addresses and one user. Warnings left, but unlikely to do anything. Ravensfire (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PissedConsumer.com[edit]

pissedconsumer.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

Hello everyone,

I wrote earlier to this section and asked to remove PissedConsumer.com website from "media-wiki blacklist", After that I wrote to the user "Cyphoidbomb" regarding the removal of PissedConsumer.com website from "media-wiki blacklist" and he forwarded me to submit the request to this page "MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals". So, I published an update with the explanation why the blacklisting is not relevant anymore. Please, read the information below. Could you assist me with the removal of our site from "media-wiki blacklist"? Thank you.


Update: -----------------------------------------

I took the liberty of contacting the company and doing a bit of further research before responding to you. Besides doing my own research, I was assisted to put together this response by Michael Podolsky, CEO of Opinion Corp(holding company of PissedConsumer), for full disclosure.

Thank you very much for responding and spending your time reviewing our situation. Pissed Consumer has been an online platform since 2006 and this exchange will hopefully help clarify who we are, what we do, and why we're relevant to Wikipedia and its users.

Wikipedia pages exist for other sites in our industry, and we do not feel they necessarily have more notoriety than us. Yet Pissed Consumer has not been able to get a Wikipedia page for years. I am asking you for an objective review and reconsideration to remove us from your blacklist.

As I am affiliated with Pissed Consumer, I do not intend to write the Wikipedia page myself to avoid a conflict of interest, though I'm happy to provide information if necessary. What I would like, however, is reconsideration of our site and company being blacklisted, so a page can be created.

As I'm aware you consider a company's notoriety in these matters, and as I see you're concerned about what value a consumer review site might have to encyclopedia users, I hope you'll find the below background helpful.

In addition to publishing consumer reviews, Pissed Consumer has been a trusted source of information for media outlets large and small, and even government agencies, for years. We're involved in more than consumer reviews. We're in consumer advocacy, and we've actively worked to protect consumers from unscrupulous reputation management schemes.

Pissed Consumer has been the winning side of prominent industry court cases protecting online publishers of user-generated content. Scams we've uncovered were reportedly a factor influencing changes in policy with Google (information below), as well as an investigation by the Texas State Attorney General. And PissedConsumer has also been active in industry events, presenting at and sponsoring several conferences. As one example, I've been invited to speak at Ungagged in both Las Vegas and London (https://www.ungagged.com/speaker/michael-podolsky/).

I hope you'll consider this broader industry relevance in your review and understand Pissed Consumer is about much more than just the consumer reviews we publish.

Major Media Press Coverage:

  1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/31/lawsuit-against-lawyers-who-allegedly-filed-improper-lawsuits-aimed-at-getting-internet-criticism-deindexed-by-google/?utm_term=.da826c0768b6
  2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/28/solvera-group-accused-by-texas-ag-of-masterminding-fake-defendant-lawsuits-now-being-sued-by-consumer-opinion-over-california-lawsuits/?utm_term=.7a6044468a5e
  1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2017/09/14/the-man-who-duped-google-into-suppressing-bad-corporate-reviews/2/#481c213923c6
  2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/10/12/law-firm-drops-suit-against-pissedconsumer-com-over-reviews-about-sexual-dalliances/#2e6328330184

Coverage in other media includes:

These are just a handful of media outlets that have referenced Pissed Consumer as a story or source over the years.

Here is more information about key industry issues and some of the bigger stories we've been involved in to give you more context on Pissed Consumer's relevance to Wikipedia users doing research:

1. Pissed Consumer discovered a major scam that was picked up by the Texas AG and a number of media outlets. Legal cases have already been brought as a result of this discovery (more info at the link below), regarding falsification of US California court orders.

  • www.pissedconsumer.com/blog/2016/03/dark-side-of-online-reputation-management-orm/

We were the ones who uncovered the scheme and worked with journalists, such as Eugene Volokh(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Volokh), and other relevant parties (http://Citizen.org) to expose it.

These important legal cases affect the rights and responsibilities of online publishers of user-generated content, and they’ve continued since we exposed the scam last year. These stories referencing us were both published within just the last couple of weeks:

2. As a result of Pissed Consumer discoveries and close communications with Google (based on information from these posts)…

  • www.pissedconsumer.com/blog/2016/03/dark-side-of-online-reputation-management-orm/
  • www.pissedconsumer.com/blog/2016/04/dirty-games-with-dmca-notices-for-pittsburgh-cbs-and-pissedconsumer/

Google changed its policies when it comes to processing complaints about defamatory content, and requiring court orders. You can find more info below:

3. PissedConsumer was embattled with Roca Labs in the Florida courts in a prominent case over an issue the FTC was also involved in. This case involved Roca Labs using questionable gag clauses and legal threats to try to silence consumers from sharing negative feedback about them publicly on third party websites by actually suing those third party websites. You can find more information about that here:

Pissed Consumer is a website used by millions of people around the world as a source for information before making important buying decisions. We help consumers share their experiences and conduct research while helping companies resolve customers' problems to protect and improve their reputations. But we're also a consumer advocacy platform that has, several times over the years, fought to expose scams and abusive DMCA behavior by some companies to protect both consumers and companies publishing consumer content.

We do more than display reviews online. Our software allows us to analyze and highlight hot issues being reported by consumers, sometimes with industry or timely importance. That's made us a trusted source over the years for everything from major media outlets to smaller industry publications. In addition to that and our continued efforts to expose scams and other industry concerns we come across, we also make recommendations to consumers on how to address their issues with companies to seek actual resolutions and even prevent customer service problems before they occur.

I hope this helps you see why Pissed Consumer is more than just a collection of reviews, and why we've become a source of information for consumers and companies related to customer service, online reputation management, and even online publishing issues. I hope Wikipedia users will be able to learn more about Pissed Consumer and these important cases and issues we've been involved with on this site soon, along with other consumer review services already featured (including Ripoff Report, Consumer Reports, Epinions, Yelp, and GripeO).

Thank you again for your time and consideration in removing Pissed Consumer from blacklist. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them for you. ElinaSivak (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ElinaSivak: no Declined, this was spammed. Whether by someone involved, a Joe job or whatever does not matter, blacklisting is not a judgement for the site per sé, it is to protect Wikipedia. Though I can see legitimate use, I foresee also many possibilities for misuse, and abuse (even outside of the spam issues). It is therefore better to control the additions. Therefore,  Defer to Whitelist for ‘’specific’’ links on this domain with specific use on a specific page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In the long essay above, I see no actual rationale for blacklist removal, or why being able to link to this site would be useful for Wikipedia. Also, we generally don't de-list sites based on requests from site owners or representatives. If a trusted high-volume editor makes such a request we would consider it further, but even then I would still recommend that the whitelist be used for specific links to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Furthermoe, this request isn't really relevant to the blacklist. It's a request to have a Wikipedia article about pissedconsumer. At the time such an article exists (and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't), only then we can consider whitelisting one page (not the home page) on the site. If ElinaSivak or anyone else with a conflict of interest wants to write such an article, they are welcome to submit a draft for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old and new blocks[edit]

Links blocked in new saves are allowed in existing articles, or something similar (???). Scythians, paragraph 3, footnote 12, contains an external link which works when clicked from within the footnote. When I try to save paragraph 3 in my sandbox I get a message saying that the link is blocked. The same message appears when I try to save it into a live article. Preview does not give a message. This may be correct behavior or it may be something you want to look at. (Since I need to replace paragraph 3 soon, let me know when you have a copy that shows this behavior or decide that there is no problem.)Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjamin Trovato: If the link is in the article, it can be saved as long as the link is not altered. If the link is removed, it cannot be put back. In either case, if a link is blocked by the spam blacklist, then there are 2 choices: either the link gets removed, or it gets whitelisted, as leaving it there will at some point give problems (if vandalism or a good faith edit 'breaks' the link, and the edit that caused the breakage cannot be undone (anymore), then one will have to implement one of the two solutions (remove or whitelist) before being able to repair the link. So my suggestion is:  Defer to Whitelist (paste the 'offending' link there in a new section, leaving off the 'http://'; further instructions in the whitelist page). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can lose the link if necessary. I thought it was something you might want to check. If you don't care, close this. Thanks. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjamin Trovato: It is not about caring, it is expected behaviour of the system. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good. If this expected behavior please close. Thanks for your time. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lyfboat.com[edit]

Please Delist \blyfboat\.com\b from blacklist zone. This site is being added as a citation to the content as it is a valuable reference for the content it cited to. Punit82 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Punit82:, I've moved the request here (to the delisting requests). I'll have a look later (if no other editor beats me to it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Punit82: nah, that is not a reference for that sentence (if it needs a reference in the first place). See WP:REFSPAM. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Punit82 found it necessary to remove this section without discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Somebody removed those content from the website. please guide me what to do now.
@Beetstra: And please block that page only. Please don't block the whole domain. As it can add valuable citations to wikipedia content.
I've blocked the account for disruptive editing. He has since removed this discussion again as an IP - enough is enough. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

formulanegocioonline.com[edit]

formulanegocioonline.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

User blocked by Dlohcierekim per this ANI report. User used their user page to advertise the link, user page deleted by Dlohcierekim. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

queromeudinheiro.com[edit]

queromeudinheiro.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

User blocked by Dlohcierekim per this ANI report. User used their user page to advertise the link, user page deleted by Dlohcierekim. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

namoroagora.com.br[edit]

namoroagora.com.br: 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

Users blocked by Dlohcierekim per this ANI report. Users used their user pages to advertise the link, user pages deleted by Dlohcierekim. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackmane:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackmane: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

arabic-keyboard.info[edit]

arabic-keyboard.info: 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

  • arabic-keyboard.info website was added to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist I remember that I have added this site as an example to the arabic keyboard page as an example of an online arabic keyboard, the side is easy to use and provides a virtual keyboard that let you write and search in arabic. I really don't know why such a site is added to the black list.
no Declined. It was added because it was spammed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirk, What do you mean it was spammed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.58.134 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@184.152.58.134: The links were constantly added by IPs, and constantly removed by regulars, despite warnings being issued. That type of unsolicited addition is spamming (and the articles involved are prime examples of this, I think I need to apply a heavy handed approach to these links in a bit). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what spam means in your case. these links were added as an example to a virtual Arabic keyboard. and you keep removing them because you think they are spam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.58.134 (talk • contribs)

@184.152.58.134: No, they are removed because they fail our inclusion standards. You keep adding them in, despite warnings being issued. Again, that type of unsolicited addition is spamming. You may want to read the whole of the external links guideline thoroughly first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

docgautham.com[edit]

docgautham.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

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Jul_1#docgautham.com, was further spammed tonight, and i found a horrific promotional article which is the source of all this. There is no encyclopedic content at this site. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

newsoftwares.net[edit]

newsoftwares.net: 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

Another one getting spammed all over; purely commercial site. Jytdog (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, (declared) COI spamming. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker fansites[edit]

Four websites are to be considered for blacklisting:

This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_use_of_fansites_at_snooker_player_articles and the general view is that blacklisting these four sites would help address the problem. Nobody has objected to blacklisting them. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Per discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

waremakers.com[edit]

waremakers.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 This domain is on the global blacklist and I request it be removed. I am unsure why this domain was originally added but suspect it has to do with the domain being linked to multiple times over 2 days in 2016: [1]. I am associated with the owner of the domain and was not even aware of this blacklisting until yesterday.

After some investigation I found the linkreport above yesterday. Checking company records, in August 2016 a very keen student interned for the owner. It seems this person added content found on the domain as a Wikipedia source no less than 13 times. This makes the blacklisting understandable.

I ask the domain be removed at this time as this undesired behavior was solely the work of an overly keen intern spread out over two days. The domain is home to a reputable business covered by media such as Financial Times, The Guardian and Forbes. The business produces journalistic content that may be valuable to use as a future source. Henk Sluipert 14:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Henksluipert: not blacklisted locally,  Defer to Global blacklist to request global removal, or  Defer to Whitelist to ask for local whitelisting of specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2017&oldid=1108701865"