Sprueth Magers is one of the most prominent commerical art galleries in the world, and I don't see any reason for it's website to be blacklisted. As far as I can tell a copycat/lookalike website used a similiar address in the past to do something nefarious, but the gallery and its website I'm sure are wholly innocent. I was easily able to edit their entry with credible sources, but some more recent changes could only be found on their website and I aslo wished to include the website in their infobox. Many thanks!
@ArtLosAngeles and Ohnoitsjamie: the .com was spammed massively. Both an account and an IP, where the clear COI account is blocked in several places. This was a clear example of (COI) spamming. It is now a long time back (2011; noting that this is not at all a reason to delist). I do note that there are much more recent some problematic edits, but nothing clearly related to spamming (I am checking the .net and the .de ..).
I would suggest a discussion regarding the general use of these websites, and I suggest that on an art-related wikiproject. If consensus shows that it is just useful on a handful of pages, I would suggest to whitelist specific links for that: Defer to Whitelist. If that discussion deems it of general use then a request to delist should be filed at meta: Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk BeetstraTC06:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A series of socks have been editwarring to put in a section sourced to this fringey anti-5G petition. Mostly on 5G, but if I recall correctly also a few related articles when 5G is protected. Sorry, I don't recall exactly which ones at the moment. Above list is just what I could quickly find on one page of 5G's article history. Article protection hasn't really made a dent, they just wait it out and start again with a new sock. This site isn't likely to ever be a useful source (The list of supporting scientists includes a bunch of people with bachelors degrees who don't appear to be researchers of any sort). - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've already blocked the four editors who seemed solely responsible for adding this site to Wikipedia over the last 3-4 years. The odd tell on all of it was that their site has no publicly identifiable byline, but they inserted complete citations with authors. One editor was clearly the author themselves. The site is a commercial wholesale entity that mostly regurgitates other sites, and I replaced almost every occurrence with a reliable source. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret:"the four editors" - the COIBot report has way more (it maxes out on templates at the bottom). I do see in the list of names quite a number which the bot has 'whitelisted' (which may be due to subsequent reverts of vandalism, returning the links back in), other blocked accounts, and some names similar to the ones you blocked. Maybe an SPI will shed more light?
@Beetstra: Thanks, didn't look at the report, will keep in mind for future. All existing links that I handled today appeared to be almost entirely from 3 users, with a fourth close enough in appearance I went ahead and snagged it too. A couple IPs, one user I knew weren't acting in COI. Some of them are stale, but I think we're more meat than sock. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Verywell is family of brands that, aside from the above, also includes verywellfit.com. It is owned by Dotdash. Wikipedia's article on Verywell states: "Its content is created by 120 health experts and reviewed by board-certified physicians"; and: "As of March 2017, it reached 17 million US unique users each month". Why are these sites blacklisted? Cheers, Manifestation (talk)14:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
see here: About.com also previously served as a Wikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing. In 2017, the About.com website became defunct and some of its content was moved to Dotdash's current website brands.[10][11] Due to persistent violations of WP:MEDRS, verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: Investopedia.Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am trying to add some exyernal link to from arrestedworld.com which is blocked kindly remove fron the block list. So i can contribute some valvable infromation to wikipedi. Sumansuman 122 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Manwë986: I am sorry, without any information on which sources you want to add and why there is not much we can do here. Please read the instructions at the top of this page and request in the appropriate subsection on this page. --Dirk BeetstraTC11:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibaji spambot
These are the links being spammed onto account talk pages and a few IP talk pages by Wikibaji spambot accounts.
Beetstra, mind having another look? There have been several brand-new users adding it (a couple new ones since this report was originally filed), see the COIBot report. creffett (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WhatCulture is most certainly one of the best news sources for information on entertainment. Its credibility is such that we know that its editors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications". Seriously, a source like this has no place on any of the Wikimedia projects, yet I see dozens of references to the website in many Wikipedia articles about video games. I do not know of any evidence of spamming, but it is possible, and the overused website really is worthless to Wikimedia. FreeMediaKid!09:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that WhatCulture already is considered unreliable. I think the problem is that Wikipedia articles about entertainment and pop culture suffer the most when it comes to the reliability of the sources, and WhatCulture is one of the worst cited sources. Even if it were to not be blacklisted, how can we trust that new editors will correctly discard the source as unreliable? FreeMediaKid!01:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FreeMediaKid!, regarding "... WhatCulture already is considered unreliable", can you link us to WP:RS/N discussions. If the only given reason is 'it is unreliable' we generally need a strong consensus discussion that states that it basically never should be used as a reference (outside of primary sourcing use, which we then can whitelist) nor as an external link. Dirk BeetstraTC06:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see where this is going. Okay, by searching the RSN, I see plenty of instances where WhatCulture has been criticized for its ability to report. I recognize the possibility of confirmation bias interfering with my judgement, so I will have to make sure that my results are balanced if necessary and have due weight. Anyway, by searching "WhatCulture" and "What Culture" in the RSN archives, I find relevant results such as archives 171, 214 and 257. There is a lot less discussion about the source than I would like to admit. The first of the archives is about the website's reporting style ("Top 10s" lists, etc.) and how it gets its own information. The second archive describes it as being polemical, although at least one editor has noted that it is reliable as a source of the author's opinion, but then again, so is every other source. The last of the archives simply repeats familiar statements, but the archives at WP:RSN are not alone. WikiProject Video games considers the website to be unreliable, and so does WikiProject Professional wrestling.
I recognize that we cannot add every single website to the blacklist, especially if it means that they are valuable to at least a little extent. On the other hand, I had just become aware of Wikipedia's edit filters. I have known about them, but I simply became more aware of them. I probably should have taken the discussion there and posted it rather than here. FreeMediaKid!10:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I love WhatCulture. I spent probably too much time watching their videos. That said, they're not reliable. "7 Worst Performances by an Oscar winning actor" will be nothing but opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic spamming for a private visa application site. Note the borderline-fraudulent site name implying government connections, not the first Indian site that uses this cheap tactic. GermanJoe (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has been going on off and on since 2017. Completely ignores warnings, but changes IPs often enough that it is possible they're just not seeing them. - MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See COIBot report. Recurring spam, previous blocks have been ignored. The case is a bit stale, but such sites usually come back again. GermanJoe (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A tabloid from Albania peddling false and misleading information, ocnal.com is often used to back up some rather proposterous claims on "List of famous Albanians" articles on en.wiki, claiming the likes of George Washington, Alan Shepard and Sandra Bullock as being Albanian. See [2][3] In fact, calling it a tabloid is probably overly charitable. Clickbaity, sensationalistic headlines and no editorial oversight whatsoever. Claims like the George Washington one are clearly fake news, as described by this independent fact-checking organization. Blacklisting ocnal.com would stop a good 80% of the fake news vandalism to articles such as Mary Ball Washington, List of Albanian Americans, etc. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amanuensis Balkanicus, has there been any discussion about this source and its reliability in other forums like WP:RSN? We usually do not blacklist sites for reliability concerns, unless a community discussion with a clear consensus asks for it. If you haven't yet, I would recommend to start a general discussion about this site on such a noticeboard. GermanJoe (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just noticed in the source of the mentioned category that he typed [http://ℒoviℱm.com ℒoviℱm.com], what, IMO strangely, links to lovifm.com. --jdxRe:13:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eternal Father: Declined, the domain has been repeatedly spammed in the past, cannot be considered a reliable source and is involved in a long-term "sockpuppet" issue with an editor who evades their block by repeatedly creating new accounts. Such cases will generally remain on blacklist. GermanJoe (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the website doesn't look that bad (though probably not especially reliable), it appears to be getting added to a number of articles by IP editors in what is probably an attempt at SEO - since the website says that it was only started in November 2019, I'm guessing that they're trying to increase their visibility. creffett (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As described here, News NT is a website that frequently republishes articles from other news outlets in violation of copyright regulations. Requesting that this site be blacklisted in compliance with the COPYLINK policy. ToThAc (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After working on the Timeline for asexual history, I had to enlist some help on finding any link for the chapter "The Sexually Oppressed" by Myra Johnson for the book "Asexual and Autoerotic Women: Two Invisible Groups" published by Harvey L. and Jean S. Gochros in 1977. After 2 hours of Google search, I came up empty. Nothing. Someone "scanned" the chapter I needed with their phone and uploaded it to the above site. Now, I am not asking for the entire site to be unblacklisted, just one link. That's all I am requesting.
There isn't another version out there from the mountain of online sources because I have looked. Though if you all want to give it a shot, feel free. :) If you all find a link I can use for that chapter, pages 96 to 107, I'll be happy to use it. But for right now, this is it. It's all I'm asking. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:18 on April 16, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
Seems like the archive bot has some problems with this page since 23 March, anyone has an idea why? I removed some stray text that may confuse it, but I doubt that was the cause. GermanJoe (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spammed by multiple IP editors, see COIBot report. There were a handful of instances on hiwiki as well, wasn't sure if that was enough to request a global blacklisting, but I can do so if you all think that would be more appropriate. creffett (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklist entry a few sections up (csibioinfo.nus.edu.sg/csingsportal) is too specific to be effective, being circumvented by the linkspammer hereMrOllie (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, so far as I'm aware it is just this and https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201910.0146/v2 - but I imagine if we were to blacklist the preprints link they'd just upload it somewhere else or get a new upload number at preprints. I'm also noting here that User:Omeran's contrib links no longer work because the account was globally renamed to User:EasyCheesy at meta. - MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie, I saw some specific dois I think, and indeed that preprints link, We could grab those as well, if they then want to change link we can just block-and-ban them on sight.
@Atlantic306: Declined, this is not the official census of India, it is unreliable. It just repackages material from the official census data. Please use the official census data. --Dirk BeetstraTC14:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial gallery spamming links to its own promotional materials. Now using a different IP for each edit, so definitely not a good-faith contributor. Range-blocking does not seem to be a possibility. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: ".. because of an IP spamming it" & "The IP got blocked ...". First of all, I see three IPs, none of them blocked, and an editor (who is blocked). Declined. --Dirk BeetstraTC15:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editor got blocked then, the original response must not have been very clear. In any case, it looks like it could have been well-intentioned, and if the user was blocked over a year ago they will have probably given up. It has a purpose, please reconsider. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
realhistoryww.com/index.htm -- a cursory look at the introductory page should give administration all they need to know about blacklisting this POV/fringe website - can someone more familiar with the process run with this 'dog'? thanks 50.111.14.1 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a cursory look at the introductory page should give administration all they need to know about blacklisting this POV/fringe website - 'all ancient civilizations are "black" and white British and German historians are faking history ...' can someone more familiar with the process run with this 'dog'? thanks 50.111.14.1 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
casino.guru: 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
Hi! I wanted to know if this site casino.guru can be removed from the blacklist. I wanted to use valuable info out of it and I couldn't because it's blacklisted so I reached out to talk: spam blacklist and they sent me here. I think this site is not spammy, has valuable information for people in their guide. I actually wanted to add information to the roulette page in Wikipedia, but it was not possible. It's only in spam list because every site including guru in it is automatically banned. Do you think it would be possible to remove it due to the fact it's really useful for adding more information (for people to use) to Wikipedia? Thank you for your response.
JohnyH9 (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See COIBot report. I think it's some kind of a travel blog? Not really clear, but there's a number of SPAs sneaking it into articles, usually by replacing existing refs. creffett (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blog post from the website added to HDFC Bank by several IPs - looks like the website author really wants to push his story about the bank forging his signature or whatever. creffett (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
