Thank you. So as someone in Vietnam spammed links to the website 4 years ago, how can it be reviewed again and removed from the blacklist?— Precedingunsigned comment added byNamditto (talk •contribs)14:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretends to be a news site. Over the last months,Shakoorpanhwer(talk·contribs·count) has been busy adding links to it in some WP articles – some 50 articles refspammed by now; the vast majority of edits have been reverted.
In fact, suhnisindh786.com was started in late 2020 while Shakoorpanhwer is its founder, owner or editor as evident from the Instagram URL in the website's header (https://www.instagram.com/shakoorpanhwer).
A pre-print service known for holding papers mostly in the fringe science area. If there anything valid in it, it would be better cited to the journal where it actually got published (perWP:PAYWALL, there's no problem if the source is not freely accessible). It's been used by the user linked here to promote some really bollocks claims about astronomical bodies, and I'm sure they're not the only ones - pre-prints are generally discouraged, and a pre-print service specialising in junk science should get the blacklist treatment...RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)02:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a clean-up of the few links in articles. There's a lot more on talk pages, but these are harmless for the time being; we just ought to discourage future use - if there's an exceptional paper which can be cited directly to there, that can be dealt via case-by-case whitelist.RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)03:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This site, The Forest Restoration Research Unit, seems innocuous and I wanted to quote an academic article hosted at this site. In 2013 it was marked as hosting Trojan. Is this still valid?Brunswicknic (talk)13:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)p.s.@Werieth:@Hu12:[reply]
This is a deprecated source that was used thousands of times; I spent many hours removing it after RSN discussions, and yet it is continuing to be added despite an edit filter. I just removed over 40 references to five separate pages on a single article[2]. This is beyond tedious.Guy(help! -typo?)14:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colonies Chris, thanks for reporting.Here is the report from Yandex which is probably what tripped Malwarebytes. I'm guessing it's a false positive as Google, McAfee, ESET and Opera didn't flag it. The MediaWiki blacklist stops new links from being added, it does nothing about existing links. Please report such links toWikipedia:Village pump (technical) in the future so they can be analyzed and, if found harmful, have existing links replaced in articles. —Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me)19:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-RS that has been ref-spammed into numerous articles by various IPs and an account with an obvious COI.SmartSE (talk)19:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional editing around this organization and their site is the primary focus of the EditorF sockfarm. Starting to become active again, has been going off and on since June 2020. -MrOllie (talk)18:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, I understood a user has used that argument for the site to be blacklisted, however that is not true. They have their own set of journalists that tests cars on their own with their verdict and analysis:
Andra Febrian, there were in fact two problems with the site. The first was the scraping issue. The second - and rather more relevant to us here - was spamming by a succession of sockpuppet accounts.
Wemay blacklist sites due to persistent copyright violation (aka scraping). Wedo blacklist them for spamming.
Our domain marketingsavior.com has been blacklisted to participate on Wikipedia due to unknown reasons.
We have very strong pieces of evidence and knowledge that we can contribute to the Wikipedia community. We were trying to cite one of the content mentioned on wiki page of Hostinger that we have full knowledge about and have also mentioned it in our blog.
We have this content where we would like to add citation to -
As of 2021, the user base has grown to more than 30 million spread across 178 countries and 15000 new customers are added daily which shows that Hostinger has something. - ( Page link - marketingsavior.com/cheap-web-hosting-hostinger-review/ )
I've been trying to coach a new user,Ladlads (talk ·contribs), with adding some changes, supported by reliable sources. They say theyattempted to add multiple sources (History.com and the local paper) but Wikipedia told me they were both on the blacklist. I'm a little confused:
While History.com is considered unreliable at RSP—for good reason—it doesn't seem to be listed atMediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.
I'm a little surprised that any given "local paper" would be on the RSP, as I'd assume such a thing to be at least somewhat reliable (although I'm sure some aren't).
Gaelan, it is also the very coreof SEO. Using a google amp link is telling google that someone is interested in the website they are redirected to, and hence increases the google ranking of the website. Add google.com/amp/s/www.myspammycompany.com as your company’s website, and every time someone finds you company on already high ranking Wikipedia and follows your link your website itself also ranks up. And there is literally no single reason why you cannot link to the proper site. You don’t write an article based on finding the result in Google, you write article after reading the page Google sends you to.Dirk BeetstraTC19:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably observing that AMP URLs, in a desktop browser, just redirect through to the normal URL. But that's not the case on mobile. Try this: on a phone, google some recent piece of news (I used "glasgow immigration protest"). Click any result with a lightning bolt icon next to the domain name. Observe that the article shows up, and that your URL bar still contains the AMP URL.
It's very easy, as we saw here, for a user who Googled something, clicked a link, read the article, and copied the URL—i.e. did exactly what they were supposed to do, unless they specifically knew they had to work around AMP—to end up copying an AMP link instead of the canonical URL.
In my view, blocking AMP links in this fashion is veryBITEy—it's an honest, easy mistake to make while making a legitimate effort to cite an RS, and is likely to hit editors who are already frustrated by their edits being reverted for being unsourced. My understanding (e.g. from the note at the top ofWP:EF/R) is that we don't use automated mechanisms like this to reject good-faith edits with small policy violations, only for obvious, unambiguous abuse.Gaelan💬✏️19:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PACT is a thing. If someone is linking to a google search result, that has proven to often be people trying to avoid the blacklist. New users who fall on this can just be explained that they shouldn't do this and should instead link to the page directly (maybe the edit notice for edits disallowed by the blacklist could be updated to reflect this?).RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)14:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it actually needs to be a phone, not a tablet - I get the redirect when my user agent is macOS Safari or iPad Safari, but not iPhone Safari. The behavior of these "AMP viewer URLs" is documented by Google in an annoyingly long blog posthere - note the bullet pointWhen users visit a Google AMP viewer URL on a platform where the viewer is not available, we redirect them to the canonical page for the document.Gaelan💬✏️03:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gaelan, for me, still no reason to allow spammers to abuse the system. It is a global rule (all ‘redirect’ services get globally blacklisted), and the only reasonable alternative is to make it a fully blocking edit filter, which is basically the same.Dirk BeetstraTC17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Made to look like it is the personal website ofJeremy Stoppleman, but it is actually an ad for marketing/SEO services (the website itself keeps changing). It has been added to the page 8-9 times since 2016, but every time it is removed, it gets snuck back in a few months later from a different (but similar) IP. Please see my user page for COI disclosure.CorporateM (Talk)18:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklistedin 2009 for some spammy external link additions by IPs, but looks like it could be potentially useful as a source now - claims to have decent editorial control and has a significant amount of reporting. Whether it will eventually be deemed reliable or not, it doesn't seem like it's necessary to be blacklisted.Elli (talk |contribs)03:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, After trying to contribute to Wikipedia with the info from Tranio.com's expert article it turned out that the website is on the spam list. I added some info about Viennese cafes statistics and put a link to Tranio's original survey in the 'References' section as it said in Wikipedia rules. What did I wrong? How can I contribute further? Please remove Tranio from the blacklist as many users refer to it when it comes to real estate statistics. I'm specialized in this topic too. Thank you.ErganolQute (talk) 3:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Beetstra - No, that doesn't appear to be true about this source now (and I kind of doubt it was true then, too, but I don't know for certain). While it is a magazine with a narrow focus, it is not a promotional source. This definitely passeswp:V, and is most certainly a reliable source.Bneu2013 (talk)08:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added to spam blacklist.OhNoitsJamieTalk14:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Defer toGlobal blacklist Trading view was spammed across multiple wikis, and as such it wasblacklisted on meta.OhNoitsJamieTalk14:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done The site wasspammed heavily by throw-away accounts last year. A trusted high-volume editor could request awhitelisting if the need arose, but I don't anticipate that.OhNoitsJamieTalk01:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Declined,
Removed fromMediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk BeetstraTC08:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]