dailydhakareport.com, jeetbangladhaka888win.com, babu88bonus.com

Online gambling sites. On Talk:Online gambling: Persistent spamming by IPs from the same geographic location. Annh07 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Annh07: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

healthcareglowhub.in

Spam, three separate accounts. C F A 17:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hortitips.com

Long term spamming using multiple IPs over at least the last year. Often successful for long periods because most plant pages do not have active watchers. Today I found six pages with external links that had persisted for months.

🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MtBotany: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 19:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan utility-bill sites

  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: e[ps]co.{0,15}bil.{0.15}\.pk\b

Long-running spamming by IPs and some named accounts at Electricity sector in Pakistan (example diffs 1, 2) and at various articles within Category:Distribution companies of Pakistan (3, 4, 5, 6, 7). My suggested regex catches most, but not all, of the domains. Some of the domains are listed at User:John of Reading/Spam links; DMacks (talk · contribs) may be able to list some more. The regex should be safe, as I have searched for \bhttps?://[^ ]*e[ps]co.{0,15}bil.{0.15}\.pk\b within the latest database dump and found no matches. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 19:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sai.net

IP just started editing today to add this spam link. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:44C8:45A2:484A:1821:11D7:70A3:7D9C DACartman (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DACartman It seems only one user which is now blocked, and the user was not spamming working links, so that is not going to be stopped by the spam blacklist. You could try an edit filter if it persists. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tradingeconomics.com

tradingeconomics.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 website has been blocked since 2008, apparently because someone was overusing it at the time. However, it's a very useful resource to find economic indicators, especially for smaller and less-covered countries (I came across it trying to find data on the Central African Republic), and there's no longer a clear reason to have it blocked since purported spamming occurred 17 years ago. There have been other requests throughout the years to unblock it on different talkpages. Requesting a review of the block. - Csillagkohó

@Csillagkohó I have just been blacklisting material that was spammed unnoticed for years, spamming does not stop after we blacklist (it pays their bills), and there are cases where clear COI editors are here years after their links got blacklisted, either circumventing, ignoring or even trying to get their material delisted. I do not buy arguments that mention time.
There are zero granted whitelist requests (one real request only, anyway). That does not suggest that it is in high demand or reasonably good. Please try whitelisting the specific link.  Defer to Whitelist. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra "I have just been blacklisting material that was spammed unnoticed for years". Which is not the case here. Someone (unclear if it was even a person connected to the website or not) overused the site sometime in the 2000s. It is likely that that person has forgotten about the site's existence, let alone that they're still interested in promoting it. (If they are, blocking it again is 2 clicks away.)
It's a decent site and a useful resource when looking into the economies of African or Asian countries, on which there can be sparse data. The site is not in "high demand" (why should it be?) because these aren't the most popular topics on Wikipedia in the first place. Most people who come across a block don't go to the effort to post it here, they just let the information out or leave it unsourced.
"I do not buy arguments that mention time." Following this logic, nothing can ever be removed from the blacklist. The chance of some nefarious years-long plot to promote a website is never excluded. Csillagkohó (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Csillagkohó Indeed not the case here, it was just to show that time is not an argument, if not stopped, or even when stopped, people will try to get their links on Wikipedia. Spam does not magically stop 5 years or 10 years after blacklisting. It pays their bills, it often just continues. It is not 'likely that that person has forgotten about the site's existence', this is not some random person spamming the link, it is very likely a person either directly connected to the site (as the comment in the blacklisting said "Self promotional spam posted by an IP's associated with the organization. Enough time wasted, not needed on the project."), or a person who was paid to make sure that their site has good search engine rankings, or just that people will find the links and visit the site more often. And for that, it does not matter whether it is a decent site or not, there was someone interested in promoting their site more.
No, that is not logic, logic is that we remove things if they have substantial use, if editors can actually show that abuse has stopped. Substantial use means that we see granted whitelist requests. We have a constant influx of new material, I have no interest to do experiments where experience has learned that spamming sometimes does continue and adding more workload to an already overloaded area of Wikipedia.
If this one is such a non-regular use, then whitelisting the one source first is just the better solution. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra How could editors prove or disprove that abuse has stopped when a site remains blacklisted? Csillagkohó (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that is exactly the problem. There is a blacklistlog, but that is difficult to feed back to intentions. As I said, experience has learned that there are often sites spammed for a long time, there are often sites that resume spamming after they are removed, or we have often site owners here asking for their sites to be removed. And those timespans do sometimes cover 10-15 years. And the experiment is not then '2 clicks away', it is often quite some cleanup, and thén 8 clicks away (scripted 3). And I know who has to do the cleanup first. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dreammeaningnow

Link
Spammers

Persistent spamming, please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. There are already cross-wiki additions, so may need soon to migrate to meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

islamlegacy.com

Has moved on to IP additions after being warned under the named account. - MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marioxsoftware

Link
Spammers

Please add to the blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pamojasafarisuganda.com

Persistent spamming by multiple accounts and IPs. Annh07 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note; some cross-wiki spamming as well; consider taking to meta. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jameswebbdiscovery.com

Per ANI thread, accounts listed indicate long-term spamming, including a string of socks beginning from February 2024 showing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (Astronomynotes, LoveForAstronomy, Cosmicsight; Cosmicsight recently just been blocked). theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even disregarding the deception/sockpuppetry, there's no overall usefulness on this website as it appears to be a third-party blog containing reposts of official NASA press releases (nasa.gov) with advertisements and affiliate links added in according to another administrator and editor ([1], [2] edit summary). theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theinstantmatrix: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

heritage.org

Consensus at RfC that the domain for the Heritage Foundation should be blacklisted. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_Heritage_Foundation. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 06:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes@Pppery this change appears to have also resulted in blocks for a separate and much more authoritative source here in NZ, which is the same url but at .org.nz - is there any chance we'd be able to get something to factor this in and allow use of Heritage NZ links? Turnagra (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also english-heritage.org mentioned in the RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. I've moved the site to Special:BlockedExternalDomains so it should now only block heritage.org and not other domains with the same suffix like https://heritage.org.nz or https://english-heritage.org * Pppery * it has begun... 21:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing, thanks so much for the quick response! Turnagra (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about this, sorry if it's not the correct forum for it: does the blacklisting apply just to citations, or to bare links as well? I'm asking because I noticed The Heritage Foundation article still has links to its website in the infobox and external links section. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It applies to all links. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu/@Grnrchst the links on that page should be whitelisted, see instructions ther. Thus:  Defer to Whitelist. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes: in your closing of the RfC you didn't mention the sub-discussion on The Daily Signal. Should it be included in the blacklist here as a domain known to be controlled by The Heritage Foundation? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

scalefusion.com

I recently attempted to add our name to the List of MDM Software Wikipedia page as a recognized MDM provider in the market. However, I later discovered that our edits were removed, and our organization's URL had been banned.

Upon further research and discussions with experienced Wikipedia contributors, I learned that, in the past, individuals from my organization repeatedly added our direct website link without adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Unfortunately, this led to the banning of our URL a few years ago. I now fully understand Wikipedia’s policies regarding external links, references, and appropriate citations.

I sincerely request the removal of the URL ban. I assure you that we will strictly follow Wikipedia's guidelines and will not engage in any inappropriate link additions. Our goal is only to contribute relevant and verifiable information to the Wikipedia community.

I appreciate your time and consideration and would be grateful for your support in resolving this matter. Please let me know if any additional steps are required from my side. Sakshi Singh Das (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined, as you were previously made aware: requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined.Sam Kuru (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

rubycusack.com

According to my antivirus (AVG Antivirus Free), this link used in the page John E. Turnbull as a source (see old page version), contains malware. --Ensahequ (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

motcheck.org

SmartSE (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to spam blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

upscalculator.net

SmartSE (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to spam blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alexa.ng

Persistent spamming. The site also throws up links to a scam site, uewlihasq.com. JBW (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tazasandesh.com

Moderately persistent adding links to a spam website as sources. Once the first account, Ks Kartik, was blocked by HJ Mitchell they have apparently started creating accounts or using IP addresses to just do one edit on one article in an attempt to evade detection. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MtBotany:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2025
No tags for this post.